See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280775415

Popular Science Writing to Support Students’ Learning of Science and

Scientific Literacy

Article  in  Research in Science Education · July 2015

DOI: 10.1007/S11165-015-9465-Y

CITATIONS READS

38 1,894

2 authors:

Susanne Pelger Pernilla Nilsson

Lund University Halmstad University
34 PUBLICATIONS   492 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   1,386 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Student learning progression in higher education View project

Blended learning för utveckling av lärarkompetens View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Susanne Pelger on 08 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456
DOI 10.1007/s11165-015-9465-y

Popular Science Writing to Support Students’ Learning

of Science and Scientific Literacy

Susanne Pelger & Pernilla Nilsson

Published online: 3 July 2015

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract In higher natural science education, the scientific report is the prevailing genre of
writing. Despite the fact that communicative skills are highly valued in working life, earlier
studies have shown deficiencies among science students. In this paper, we highlight the need
for varied communication training, in particularly arguing for the possibilities that students’
popular science writing offers. Our study was based on a questionnaire answered by 64 degree
project students in biology. The questions focused on the students’ own experiences of writing
about their projects for the general public and what contribution the writing made to their
learning of science. A vast majority of the students expressed that the writing helped change
their perspectives and that they saw their subject and project in a different light. Many of the
students described that the popular science writing made it easier for them to put the science
content in a context, to better understand the aim of their own work, and the implications of
their findings. We discuss the positive effects that popular science writing may have on
students’ subject matter understanding and development of scientific literacy. Our concluding
remark is that popular science writing is a useful tool for reflection and that it adds significant
value to the students’ capacity to change perspectives, understand their subject and develop
scientific literacy.

Keywords Biology . Higher education . Popular science writing . Science . Writing-to-learn .

Writing skills

Introduction

In society, science disciplines are often regarded as difficult and inaccessible and not connected
to everyday life. A contributing factor may be the deficient ability among many researchers in
the natural science fields to communicate science to a wider audience, something that has been
observed by Treise and Weigold (2002). The ability to explain and to demonstrate the
relevance and meaningfulness of science influences whether the recipient will find it important

S. Pelger (*)
Faculty of Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
e-mail: susanne.pelger@science.lu.se

P. Nilsson
Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden
440 Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456

and interesting (Jidesjö et al. 2009). As a consequence, new ways of framing science content
into a context that is understandable and accessible, and further, connected to people’s
everyday lives (e.g. through a scientific literacy approach), are crucial if new knowledge is
to be spread in society. This is also a necessary concern for the recruitment of students and the
future competence within the fields of science, technology and medicine. Not surprisingly, an
alumni survey at the Faculty of Science at Lund University confirms that the ability to explain
subject matter to non-specialists is one of the most highly valued skills in working life (Pelger
2010).
In university settings, critical thinking is often considered to be one of the most important
indicators of student learning quality. Several studies (e.g. Hand and Prain 2002; Mason and
Boscolo 2000) support a relationship between writing and critical thinking. Traditionally,
writing within the natural science fields has a focus on scientific writing, which in these
settings is usually synonymous with the scientific paper. Hence, this is the genre that
dominates science students’ writing training. The lack of variation in science students’
communication skills training has consequences, not only for their skills, but also for their
understanding of the subject. In this context, Hand and Prain (2002) emphasised that writing
enhances students’ conceptual knowledge, develops scientific literacy and further familiarises
students with the expectations and reasoning skills required of scientific writing. However,
there is still a need for comparative analyses of the learning outcomes of different writing
genres and purposes in relation to the same scientific topic. Further, it is reasonable to suggest
that there are different qualities in students’ writing. For example, in order to develop the
writer’s own understanding—of concepts, the subject and the scientific method—scientific
writing has been shown to have less effect than the writing of more reflective and argumenting
texts (Reynolds et al. 2012). Reflection and argumentation require that the writer is able to
explain, relate, value and generalise science matter within a wider perspective, aspects that are
crucial in popular science writing.
The relationship between communication and learning is well known, and the research field
of writing-to-learn (WTL) brings evidence that writing promotes understanding (e.g. Dysthe
et al. 2011). Another connection is the learning benefit that teaching may have to the teacher
herself (e.g. Bargh and Schul 1980; Nilsson 2008; Nilsson and Loughran 2012). Explaining
complex matter to someone else can enhance the teacher’s own understanding of the subject. It
is therefore likely that popular science writing, where writing and teaching is combined, helps
the writer to better understand her subject. Yet studies on the effect of students’ popular science
writing on their subject understanding are limited. In this study, we used a questionnaire to
investigate biology students’ experiences writing a popular science article about their degree
project. Through different examples, we illustrate in what ways the writing contributed to their
learning. The aim of the paper is to explore how popular science writing (with the target group
of upper secondary school students) might offer an opportunity to facilitate subject under-
standing and scientific literacy of students in the science disciplines.

Understanding and Communicating Science Through the Lens of Scientific Literacy

A common call in science education reforms around the world is for teachers to communicate
science through an emphasis on scientific literacy. The search for a popular approach to
science that students find engaging has turned attention towards a curriculum that places more
focus on the world outside the university and less on the discipline-specific kind of curriculum
traditionally offered. This shift is based on the view that if students are to operate as informed
citizens in a world that is becoming increasingly global, then the science curriculum they
Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456 441

experience at university must be sufficiently meaningful and relevant for them to perceive
links with their everyday experiences. Rennie’s (2005) description of scientific literacy as
knowing science as Ba way of thinking, finding, organising and using information to make
decisions^ (p. 10) has received strong support in the Swedish national school curricula of
science. However, even though there is a common assumption that science disciplines are
often regarded as inaccessible, in university settings, the term scientific literacy has not yet
been well explored. An underlying tension between students’ learning for disciplinary knowl-
edge and their learning for being able to communicate and understand the Breal-world-science^
highlights the need for new ways to facilitate subject understanding and to help students in the
science disciplines to become scientifically literate citizens.
Roberts (2007) drew attention to two differing positions for scientific literacy —vision I
and vision II—where vision I was described as being scientist-centred with a strong focus
on science content knowledge. Vision II, he described as being more student-centred and
context driven, moving beyond seeing science as only facts and knowledge, and instead
connecting it to situations that students are likely to encounter as citizens. In terms of
popular science and science communication, scientific literacy could be expanded from
university science to ongoing participation in science activities in society by citizens of all
ages. As such, scientific literacy could describe the attempt to move towards a more
socially useful conception of science education, a conception that might also attract
students’ interest in a powerful way.
There is general agreement that scientific literacy entails being able to understand articles
about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversations about the validity of
the conclusions. Scientific literacy therefore implies that a person can identify scientific issues
underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and
technologically informed. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate
arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately.
Scientific literacy, then, focuses on the needs of students as future citizens who will engage
with science at a personal and societal level. As Rennie (2005) suggests, scientifically literate
people are interested in and understand the world around them; engaged in the discourses of
and about science; able to identify questions, collect data and draw evidence-based conclu-
sions; sceptical and questioning of claims made by others about scientific matters; and able to
make informed decisions about the environment and their own health and well-being. Such a
definition requires that people have certain skills and abilities that enable them to cope in life
both within and beyond university contexts.

Popular Science Writing in Science Education

The Swedish Higher Education Ordinance details the requirements that a student is to fulfil for
a certain degree. For natural science programmes, both bachelor’s and master’s degrees,
require students to be able to communicate their main fields of study in different contexts
(SFS1993:100, Annex 2).
In the outcomes for a bachelor’s degree, among other requirements, it is stated that the
student shall

– Demonstrate the ability to present and discuss information, problems and solutions in
speech and writing in dialogue with different audiences

as well as
442 Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456

– Demonstrate insight into the role of knowledge in society and the responsibility of the
individual for how it is used

The corresponding outcomes for a master’s degree state that the student shall

– Demonstrate the ability, in both national and international contexts, in speech and in
writing, to report clearly and discuss his or her conclusions and the knowledge and
arguments on which they are based in dialogue with different audiences

as well as

– Demonstrate insight into the possibilities and limitations of research, its role in society and
the responsibility of the individual for how it is used

All of these outcomes are about placing the main field of study in a larger context and
making it comprehensible for non-specialists. In this, there is a clear connection with the
language of science and students’ popular science communication skills.
The relation between language and science learning has been widely discussed in science
education research. For example, Wellington and Osborne (2001) argued that language is a
major barrier to most students in learning science and that Bwriting to learn^ is one practical
strategy that can help to overcome these barriers. Klein (2004) examined the relationships
between students’ writing strategies and their learning during a writing task and noticed that
setting content goals, applying moderately sophisticated writing strategies and extensive use of
content sources were important for learning. Mason and Boscolo (2000) found that students’
learning of the photoelectric effect via verbal-written lecture method and writing activities (a
letter) were more successful compared to students learning the same topic via the verbal-
written lecture method and solving related problems. Mason and Boscolo (2000) argued that
this was because writing activities facilitated students’ conceptual changes and enabled related
concepts to be constructed by students in a successful and permanent way.
An important skill for a scientist is to be able to communicate science to a wider audience.
The natural science programmes at Lund University implement these ideas as all students write
a popularised article about their degree projects. There is extensive variation among the
students concerning their capacity to popularise their degree projects. The target group of
the articles is well defined: upper secondary school students at the natural science programme.
Nevertheless, the texts vary greatly with respect to the potential readers’ previous knowledge
and interest in the subject.
In an earlier cross-disciplinary study, biology students’ popular science texts were
analysed to better understand difficulties that need to be overcome in order to aquire
writing skills in the popular science genre (Pelger et al. 2009). The texts were
analysed regarding their context, perspective, structure and style. The analysis indi-
cated that the students usually managed to write an informative and suitable for a
wider circle of readers. In addition, the introductory part of the text was appropriate
for a non-specialist reader. This indicates the students endeavor to make their projects
interesting to someone who is not an expert in the field. Despite these efforts, only a
few students manage to persist with this through the whole text. After the introduc-
tory paragraph, most of the texts make a change and instead turn to a scientific
structure and style, which breaks with the conventions of the popular science genre.
The findings could be explained by a the inability of the students to broaden the
perspective, generalise their findings, argue for the significance of the project and
Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456 443

speculate about its consequences. In several of the analysed articles, the main prop-
osition, usually the aim of the project, was also absent. Gaps in the popular science
texts give us a reason to question whether the students really understand (1) the
genre, (2) the reader, and (3) the subject. We will return to these questions later, but
first we will give a picture of how the students look upon the task of writing a
popular science article on their degree projects.

Methodology

Design of the Study

This project was conducted in a course context where students in biology and
molecular biology undertake their degree projects. The projects are individually
executed, and the assessment includes a scientific report and a popular science article.
For most biology students, this is usually the first time they write a text in the
popular science genre. As preparation for the task, a lecture was given where genre-
specific traits were highlighted. In particular, the major differences between scientific
writing and popular science writing were pointed out with respect to context, content,
structure and style. The students’ first draft of a one-page popular science article
received by formative, written feedback from the teacher. A second revised version of
the article was then assessed. The writing task was based on the assumption that
learning is multifaceted and students need different forms of formative interactions
(Nilsson 2013) to develop their conceptual understanding. Hence, the formative
feedback provided on the articles was important for students’ content knowledge
development as well as their ability to communicate the content in a way that was
accessible to others. After the writing assignment, the students were asked to answer a
questionnaire with questions about the lecture, the feedback, and whether the popular
science writing contributed to their learning. The questionnaire used open-ended
questions (e.g. What did you learn from the popular writing task? How well prepared
do you think you were for the popular writing task? In what way did the popular
writing contribute to your understanding of the science content and the way science is
used in society? In what way did the feedback help you (or not) to develop your
popular writing?). As such, the questions provided an overall picture of challenges
and opportunities of using popular science writing to facilitate students’ subject
understanding and scientific literacy in the science disciplines. The lecture, the
feedback and the assessment of the students’ popular science writing were conducted
by one of the authors of this paper, who also analysed the questionnaire on which the
present study is based.

Data Collection

The investigation was accomplished through a web-based open-ended questionnaire,

which was anonymously answered by the students within a week after the individual
assessment of their popular science article. In the study, the answers to questionnaires
from three semesters during the years of 2009 and 2010 were analysed. During this
time period, 138 students did their degree project in either biology or molecular
biology. The average age of the students taking a degree in biology was 30.0 years
and in molecular biology, 28.3 years. The proportion of women taking a degree was
444 Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456

67.7 % in biology and 66.7 % in molecular biology. Of the 138 students, 64

answered the questionnaire. The use of questionnaire provided an opportunity to reach
a large proportion of students while still giving insights into the students’ experiences
on a qualitative level. In addition to the questionnaires, the data presented in this
paper consists of transcriptions from individual cases of students’ popular texts. Here,
we used a qualitative case study approach (Cohen et al. 2007) to provide analyse how
students dealt with different perspectives in their popular science articles. Cohen et al.
(2007) described the purpose of a case study to portray, analyse and interpret
situations through accessible accounts. As such, the case study method provided a
systematic way of looking in depth at, and analysing and reporting how students’
writing might have facilitated subject understanding and scientific literacy.

Data Analysis

In order to categorise and describe key aspects of the data, content analysis was used
(Cohen et al. 2007). Content analysis describes a systematic procedure analysing the
content of written data. It is a functional method to use with a desriptive research
question and several reflections covering the same topic (Cohen et al. 2007; Miles
and Huberman 1994). The responses to the questionnaires were read carefully by both
authors separately and analysed in order to identify recurring themes for more detailed
discussions about how students in the science disciplines developed (or not) facilitated
enhanced subject understanding and scientific literacy through their popular science
writing. Hence, a general description based on the research question and the scientific
literacy framework was developed. For each questionnaire, utterances in the transcripts
were labeled and grouped into related themes. In order to develop categories and
codes that described the content of the students’ utterances referring to each domain,
an inductive analysis of the data was conducted. A process of constant comparison
(Cohen et al. 2007; Miles and Huberman 1994) was used on the compiled utterances
to identify themes. When both authors (individually) had identified different themes
from the data, the authors met to discuss the themes until consensus was reached. A
content analysis of this kind is based on the view that it facilitates the production of
core constructs from textual data (e.g. a systematic method of data reduction, data
display, and conclusion drawing and verification). In this way, the primary mode of
analysis was the development of categories from the questionnaires that captured the
key themes of how the popular science writing facilitated students’ subject under-
standing and scientific literacy.
In the following, we present some examples of how the students answered the question
asking whether the popular science writing contributed to a different perspective on their
project or subject. The students were asked to describe their experience in own words, and
their answers, which were originally given in Swedish, were translated by us. Below, the
categories that emerged from the students’ responses are presented. Each student is
quoted only once per question, which means that the answers presented to each of
the two questions correspond to different students. Since the answers were given
anonymously, we do not know which answers to the different questions were given
by the same student. Neither do we know which answers correspond to a particular
student text. Nevertheless, in order to show examples of arguments and perspectives
that may occur in the students’ popular science articles, we have included some
excerpts from the different cases. All students whose texts have been cited in this
paper have given their permission for anonymous citation.
Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456 445

Results

From the students’ answers to the questionnaire, it became clear that many of them had a
positive attitude towards the popular science writing assignment and that many would have
liked more training in popular science writing during their education. Most of the respondents
(42) also stated that the writing had contributed to a widened perspective of science as a central
part of society and literacy. Among them, 36 gave concrete examples of aspects that could be
connected to a wider perspective. In six cases, two different aspects were mentioned in the
same student answer. In the following, the most representative answers have been quoted and
thematically ordered. The wider perspective is also reflected in the popular science texts
written by the students, as illustrated by the examples below. The excerpts indicate how the
widened perspective experienced by the students was expressed in their articles.

Seeing Science as a Central Part of Society and Literacy

In their answers, the students describe how the writing may lead to a change of
perspectives that makes the writer look on her project from a different viewpoint and
develop a widened perspective where the project is part of a societal context. This
aspect was mentioned by four students and is illustrated by two examples. In the first
one, the student states that the writing helped her to see the project from a distance,
from outside. Through the popular science writing, the student could take a step out
of the researcher’s role and see the subject in a wider context, an aspect which is
important in order to become scientifically literate.
Yes, it almost felt like I was standing outside the project, looking into it, instead of being
involved kind of all the time, like I was. Felt good to get a little distance to it with the
popular science writing.

The second example particularly comments on the linguistic barriers that need to be
overcome in order for the researcher to take account of a societal viewpoint.
Yes. It is useful and important to step out of the world of science, and reflect on the
subject and its relevance in a less scientific way, even if you are a researcher. I have
found how hard it is to translate certain words into Swedish. The working language with
terms is deeply rooted.

Other students’ answers indicate an increased understanding of how their results may be
used in the future. In four of the students’ answers, the future perspective could be recognised.
One of them has a clear research perspective and points to the relevance that her project may
have to future research studies.
Yes, it did. It made me understand what positive effects my research may have on future
research.
In contrast, the other three answers reflected a more general view, referring to possible
implications of their projects. As exemplified by the next quote, these students stressed that the
popular science writing made them look beyond their own project and consider its conse-
quences for society.
Yes, you get a little wider perspective e.g., of how this knowledge can be used in a
societal context.
446 Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456

Learning Through Taking a Teaching Perspective

Several students mentioned their own learning as they struggled to, in their writing, transform
the science content to make it easily accessible to others. Their increased learning might have
been related to their understanding of their projects or the development of a meta-perspective
in order to become aware of what they learned during their studies. Further, their taken-for-
granted assumption that everyone understands the science concepts was challenged when they
were required to write about the science content in an everyday manner. There were several
examples (11) where the students stated that they developed an increased ability to explain
complex subject matter in an understandable way, as a result of the popular science writing
training. This can be exemplified by the following answer.
I can see it more broadly now and it helped to write about it at more simple level. It
made me understand the meaning of what I had done.
Many students (11) mentioned that the popular science writing brought about an increased
understanding of why a researcher’s ability to explain is significant, as exemplified by the next
answer.
Yes, as a scientist you need to practice how to explain to ‘others’, since you have to
realise that our knowledge must be passed to the rest of the society, otherwise it wouldn’t
have much worth.
Further, a meta-cognitive perspective was mentioned in two of the students’ answers, one of
which is quoted below. Here, the student points out that the popular science writing task made
her aware of all the knowledge that had been acquired through the education, something that
had not been obvious before.
At the end of your education you may have forgotten how much you have actually
learned. When writing for ‘ordinary’ people you get a pleasant reminder of what you
actually know about your own subject.
In their answers, three students emphasised how the writing of popular science had
developed their ability to explain, and that teaching and explaining something to others may
facilitate their own understanding. In the first of the following two examples, the student also
notes that teaching skills, and hence the ability to explain, are only seldom developed during
the university studies.
Yes, through the popular science text I was trained to explain the concepts. It is strange
that the educating role is not taught that much during the university studies.
In the second example, the popular science writing task is compared with a teaching activity
in which the student needs to explain the science content to another person. This student
clearly stated that she gained a deeper understanding through explaining technical terms,
something that is typically experienced during the writing of popular science.
Yes, you learn a lot when you try to put it in another way. You have to explain technical
terms, and then you understand them more deeply.
Among the students, 13 explicitly answered no to the question inquiring whether the
popular science writing task facilitated their subject understanding. Although they reported
that they did not experience a difference, their answers in most cases indicated a positive
attitude to popular science writing. Several students (11), for example, stressed that it had
helped them to develop their ability to explain their subject to a wider target group. Only a few
Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456 447

answers indicated that the respondents had a negative attitude to popular science writing, for
example, regarding it as a waste of time. The nine students whose answers could not definitely
be placed in either of the categories, yes or no, were largely positive.
Another question asked whether the popular science writing contributed to the students’
understanding of the project or subject. Like the answers to the earlier question, the answers
were written in free text. Here, the affirmative answers were 27 and the negative answers were
30, while the remaining seven could not be distinguished as yes or no.
In their answers, several students (nine) described, in general terms, that the writing of
popular science led to an increased understanding, as illustrated by the example below.
Yes, you really have to understand what you have done to describe it in simple words.
You learn about your own work when you write about it at an easier level.
Another six students clearly stated that it was the widened or different perspective,
developed through the popular science writing that, in turn, led to an increased understanding,
as exemplified by the next answer.
Yes, you understand your work better and see it from a different viewpoint.
Though the answers were not always explicitly positive, many of them reflected the benefit
of a wider perspective and aspects of subject understanding. One example is the following
answer, where the student did not recognise an increased understanding, although it is
mentioned that the popular science writing requires that details are generalised and put into
a larger context. We will return to this when we discuss the results and the significance that
generalisation and contextualisation may have to the development of understanding and
scientific literacy.
No. You have to generalise and ‘zoom out’ so much from what you actually try to do,
and so the one-page popular summary doesn’t actually say anything about what you
have been trying to do. But it is fun to write journalistically like this.
There were also a couple of answers where students highlighted the importance of the
writing process for their own understanding. In writing about the content, some aspects
became more visible to the students and their tacit knowledge of science became explicit
and articulated. This process of making the tacit explicit became crucial for the students’
understanding of science, as described in the answers below.
Yes, I have gained an increased understanding, since I had to really think through what I
have done and why, and then summarise and write it down. Even if you think about
what you have done, I mean in your head, it is something different to write it down.
Then you have it in black and white and it sinks in a different way.
The writing process really helped me to digest what I did during my degree project.

Understanding of the Aim and the Whole

Though some students reported contradictory responses between the widened perspec-
tive and an increased understanding, there are others who described a connection
between the content and the everyday life. To connect their projects to everyday life,
the students not only needed to widen their perspective, but also to extract the essence
to be able to communicate the point of the project. Among the students in this study,
there were five who stated in their answers to the questionnaire that the popular
science writing helped them to see the aim and relevance of their own project. This is
448 Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456

exemplified by the following answer, which reveals that the aim of the degree project
was not clear to the student until the popular science article was written.
Yes, I had to think about the aim of my project (why my project was important),
something I hadn’t considered before.
Many students (13) particularly stressed that the popular science writing helped them to tie
the parts of their project together, which, consequently, made the whole appear more clearly.
The following answer describes that this student, through the writing of popular science,
moved towards a more general understanding, where the connection between the details in her
project became more obvious.
Yes, a little. When I was writing the article I was on the level of detail, so it was good to
take a step backwards to tie the knowledge together.
Another student emphasised that the significance of her project in a larger context
became apparent through the popular science writing. As the student noticed, this is
important, not least in projects where the main focus is on details, as is usually the
case in molecular biology.
Maybe it becomes easier to understand the bigger picture of what you have actually been
doing for 20 weeks. It is easy to get stuck at the cell level.

In another example, the student described how a more holistic picture of the subject was
shaped during the popular science writing. The writing process was compared with the
cognitive process facilitated by mind mapping.

The popular science writing gave me the chance to see the content within my project in a
different light, i.e., I created a whole of the subject to myself. The effect is like making a
mind map, I got a clearer picture of the subject.

This last quote clearly illustrates the affordances of the popular science article to help
students develop a holistic view of the subject. Below, we will discuss the significance of such
ability to the students’ development of scientific literacy.

Perspectives in Students’ Popular Science Articles

In order to give a broader context to the questionnaire, some excerpts from the students’
articles are presented below. Six examples were chosen for being representative of the
students’ popular science writing and where different perspectives on the topic could be
observed. The first text, written by student S1, is about a study that experimentally tested
whether organism acclimation and pH variability affect the results in ocean acidification
studies. The project of the second student, S2, involved the sequencing of short tandem repeats
in human DNA. In the introductory paragraph of their articles, both S1 and S2 start by
situating the study in a broader context, highlighting the relevance of the project to the reader
and society. S2 also clearly points out how the results of the study may be applied, i.e., in
forensic genetics. Emphasising the relevance of and engaging with science at a societal level is
an important aspect within the notion of scientific literacy.

Example S1
If we do not reduce our fossil fuel emissions marine ecosystems may change in the near
future. The increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are is often associated with
Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456 449

temperature changes, but there are other consequences of our intensive use of fossil
fuels. One of the changes that might have the greatest impact on our environment, and
that can be very difficult to prevent or remedy, is ocean acidification. Our oceans absorb
much of the carbon dioxide we emit, which leads to the seawater gradually becoming
more acidic. How can we test the impact that future conditions will have on organisms in
the ocean?
Example S2
Even though there are many people on Earth, and none are alike, it is often said that a
comparison between two randomly selected persons would show that they are exactly
the same in more than 99 % of their genetic material. It suddenly becomes apparent that
there are small genetic differences which cause large variation between people. Still, it
seems almost unbelievable that measuring the length of fewer than 20 sites in the genetic
code of humans would demonstrate the difference between the world’s population. Yet
this is exactly what you do at crime scene investigations or in paternity tests. The regions
measured are called microsatellites, and are nothing other than small short DNA
sequences that are repeated after each other. By counting the number of repeats in the
repeated regions of two different people, you can tell the them apart.
Other examples illustrate how students, in the final paragraph of their article, put the results
in a larger context and discuss how they may be used. In her project, S3 used genetic markers
to create a linkage map of oats. S4 investigated the potential of using sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca)
as a biofilter for wastewater treatment. In both examples, the students discussed societal issues,
like the environment and economy, and speculated on the possible consequences that their
findings might have in the future.

Example S3
The result was that the two locations that affect the resistance were found, one which
turned out to determine almost a third of the variation in disease resistance shown by the
plants, and one which determined over 10 %. This means that on our map we now have
two locations marked, which we know that we want to pass on to future generations of
oats, for them to have good resistance to powdery mildew. Another important result is
that this is only the second map produced for oats using this type of genetic marker, and
it can serve as a reference point for future mapping. This means increased profitability
for the farmer, who will get a better yield, and environmental benefits for all of us,
because we reduce the use of pesticides.
Example S4
The results suggest that sea lettuce may well be used in the wastewater treatment process
as an additional treatment step for the separation of nitrogen and phosphorus. / — /
Through the development of techniques for growing algae, we could reduce our negative
impact on the marine environment by collecting phosphorus and nitrogen to prevent
them from flowing into the sea. Besides this, we could develop new fossil free fuels or
our cars.
As was emphasised by the students in their answers to the questionnaire, popular
science writing has similarities to teaching. In the following examples, students S5 and
S6 take on a teacher’s role and explain phenomena that are crucial to the readers’
understanding of the project. S5 uses metaphors (rules and egoists) to help the layman
better understand the uncontrolled growth of cancer cells. S6 illustrates the temperature
difference between the dog’s nose and its surrounding using an analogy that is familiar to
450 Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456

the non-specialist reader. By explaining these particular phenomena in a way that makes
the whole project understandable, the writers facilitate the understanding of its relevance
as well.
Example S5
There are several control systems in the body that keep the balance between cell division
and cell death in check. Cancer cells break the rules of the control systems and they take
every opportunity to do so. They are egoists, and a single cell that passes by the division
control could jeopardise the whole organism’s future.

Example S6
Warm-blooded animals send out radiation in the form of heat from their bodies. This
amount of heat is very small and a person would not be able to detect it. But if we could
cool down our hands so they were very cold then the temperature difference would make
it much easier to detect heat. Think about it this way, your house at room temperature
feels much warmer after entering from outside on a cold winter’s day than on a sunny
summer day, even though the house’s temperature is exactly the same. This is precisely
what the dog does, it cools its nose down in order to create a larger temperature
difference between its nose and another warm-blooded animal.

To sum up, we conclude that most of the students reported that the popular science writing
brought a different perspective to their subject or project. This is supported by the broader
perspectives evident in their articles. Fewer, though, explicitly expressed that the writing leads
to an increased understanding. A few students reported a broadening of perspective but not an
increased understanding of the subject A possible explanation is that they define their subject
from a narrow perspective, something that we will discuss later.

Discussion

During their education, students are socialised into the scientific methods of the specific
discipline and hence the writing that is typical of the institutional setting. Treise and
Weigold (2002) noted a deficient ability among researchers in the natural science fields to
communicate science to a wider audience. Society needs science experts as well as a
population with a good general level of education, which means that some students will
go on to work in the world of science and technology while others will deal with science-
based social issues. In many countries, fewer young people choose science as a career and
many express negative attitudes to school science (Jidesjö et al. 2009). Therefore, the
ability to explain and to demonstrate the relevance and meaningfulness of science is an
important skill for future science professionals. In the natural sciences, the scientific
paper, in which results of empirical studies are presented and discussed, is the standard.
Blåsjö (2004) analysed the characteristics between students’ writing in two disciplines—
history and economics—which can be regarded as epistemologically related to the natural
sciences. The comparison showed that students’ texts differed between the disciplines,
not only with respect to the overall structure but also the structure of sentences and the
choice of words. Blåsjö’s conclusion was that the language becomes a reflection of the
scientific process: in economics, linear logical reasoning with clear-cut solutions is a key
feature, while the texts of students in history were characterised by reasoning with a
multitude of perspectives.
Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456 451

Popular Science Writing Facilitates a Broader Perspective

In this study, several examples indicated that the students became more aware of their subject
matter knowledge when being trained to communicate it in a popular science manner in order
to make it comprehensible for others. The way the students transformed the science content in
their popular writing relates to aspects of that which Rennie (2005) called a scientific literate
person—a person who is engaged in the discourses of and about science and who engages with
science at a personal and a societal level. Further, the students’ taken-for-granted assumptions
concerning the lay readers understanding of science concepts was also challenged. However,
an important limitation of the study was that it cannot guarantee that the learning that the
students experienced, as reported in the questionnaire, corresponds to actual learning. How-
ever, the examples given by the students’ quotes above make such a connection plausible. The
change of perspectives and the broader context in which the projects and project findings were
discussed in the students’ articles provide further evidence of a wider understanding of the
subject. It is also supported by the changes that students’ articles under went during the
development of the text, something that was reported in the analysis mentioned earlier (Pelger
et al. 2009) and in a publication on communication training in science higher education (Pelger
and Santesson 2012). The changes that could be observed in the different versions of texts reflect,
for example, an increased ability to adopt different perspectives, point out connections, reflect,
generalise and speculate—abilities which, according to the SOLO-taxonomy (Structure of the
Observed Learning Outcome, Biggs and Collis 1982), characterise higher levels of learning.
Another study that illustrated disciplinary variation in student writing is that of North (2005),
where essays on the history of science written by students from a science and an arts
background were analysed. The results showed that the science students not only produced
shorter texts but also had difficulties in considering different viewpoints in constructing an
argument. Instead, they had a tendency to present knowledge as factual rather than perspectival.
North explained her findings by reflecting on the science students prior experiences of academic
writing, which may have been limited to the reproduction of factual information in relatively
short and discrete portions of text, with only little place for interpretation and evaluative
reasoning.
The discourse conventions of the natural sciences bring about difficulties when a different
assignment is given to students from these disciplines. Similarly, there is a contrast between the
popular science genre and that of academic writing in the science fields. When the target
readership is no longer restricted to the a scientific audience but includes a wider circle of
readers whose backgrounds and interest may vary greatly, the author’s ability to broaden the
perspective is crucial. Yet this ability was one of the weak points identified in the previous
study of science students’ popular science writing skills (Pelger et al. 2009). In several cases,
the aim of the project was not made clear enough, nor was the significance of the results in a
wider context. Many writers also showed no evidence of evaluative reasoning and of specu-
lating about the possible consequences of their results, which is in line with the observations
made by North (2005).
In these circumstances, it is interesting that the majority of biology students in this study
developed a broader perspective on their science knowledge through their popular science
writing, something which also confirms Wellington and Osborne’s (2001) idea that writing is a
way to learn the language of science. As mentioned earlier, most of the students had not been
trained for the genre during their earlier education, and traditional ways of learning science
content in university settings pay limited attention to communicative skills in teaching and
learning science content. Noteworthy, though, is that many of the students in the processing of
the text followed the teacher’s feedback managed to suit the perspective to a lay reader. As
452 Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456

there was a clear goal with the task (i.e., to comunicate science content for upper secondary
school students at the natural science programme and at the same time develop a deeper
understanding for the content itself), the study is in line with Klein’s (2004) arguments of the
importance of setting clear goals for writing tasks.
For example, in the second version, it was usually more apparent what benefit the project
may have to the reader and the society. Other improvements that were made related to
highlighting different aspects, such as the economic, medical or environmental consequences
that the project have bring in the future. Remarkably, several of the answers in the question-
naires testify that it was not until the writing of the popular science article that the students
became aware of these aspects of their degree projects. The answers also showed that the
students related this awareness to a widened perspective, while a connection between the
writing task and increased understanding was less evident. It is therefore necessary to find out
how students' understanding relates to a widend perspective of the subject.

Broader Perspectives Facilitates Understanding

Understanding has been described as an ability to detect patterns (Gärdenfors and Lindström
2008). Those who can see the pattern can also more easily see how the individual parts relate to
each other. To be able to detect a pattern in the broader sense, we need to widen our perspective
outside our own field. The ability to change perspectives could therefore be regarded as crucial
for an increased understanding. Further, for all students, writing, and learning to write within
relevant genres, is an important part of higher education and it is reasonable to suggest that
academic writing as well as popular writing should be a general learning goal. This reasoning is
in line with how qualitative learning in higher education has been defined. According to the
SOLO-taxonomy, the lower levels of learning are characterised by simple factual knowledge
and verbs like Bidentify^, Bdescribe^ and Blist^, while the higher levels require an ability to deal
with a more complex matter (Biggs and Collis 1982). These levels are characterised by, inter
alia, the abilities to compare, generalise and reflect. When applied in the natural science fields,
this higher-level learning may, for example, include students’ capacity to reflect on the
significance of their subject in various contexts and to speculate about the consequences that
scientific achievments might have for society. It follows that popular science ,particularly when
these skills are taught, may support students’ learning at a higher level (Pelger et al. 2009).
The rhetoric of popular science has been described as a tool for reflection that supports a
broadening of perspectives (Wolrath Söderberg 2003)—something that was evident in the
biology students’ questionnaire responses in this study. The students’ answers to the ques-
tionnaire also indicate that the broader perspective that the majority developed through the
popular science writing task was also significant for enhancing their understanding. Examples
of experiences which indicate an increased understanding among the students were the ability
to see the whole, connections, the aim and consequences of their projects and the ability to
reflect on their own knowledge and learning.
While most of the biology students considered that the popular science writing had
contributed to a different perspective, there were fewer who reported an effect of
increased understanding. This outcome suggests that natural science students do not
necessarily connect the ability to reason about their subject from differing perspectives
with understanding of the subject. This indicates that their idea of what defines the
subject does not necessarily include aspects like application and societal significance.
As such, it might be argued that these natural science students were not scientifically
literate in the way that was described by Rennie (2005). Such a narrow definition of the
subject may explain the discrepancy between the number of students who reported a
Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456 453

broader perspective and those who reported increased understanding. Thus, it may be
that the students underestimate the significance of a broader perspective for subject
understanding. What makes this a plausible explanation is the many answers in which
students described their achievement of a different perspective also indicated increased
understanding of the subject in a wider sense.
The ability to adopt different perspectives is valued differently in different disciplines. In
the humanities and the social sciences, for example, the ability is crucial to the research
methodologies and students are trained for it in their education. Accordingly, writing as a skill
as well as a tool for thinking and learning is a key competence in these programmes. It seems
reasonable to suggest that the students thereby also become well equipped for the task of
popularising their subject. In the natural sciences, however, neither writing nor the ability to
adopt different perspective is usually systematically taught, which could explain the difficulties
science students reported in changing perspectives and placing their subject in a larger context.
It is worth noting that similar difficulties have been observed in their scientific writing,
investigated using a questionnaire about students’ writing skills which was answered by
supervisors of degree projects in biology (Pelger 2014). Here, the students’ main difficulties
were to specify the aim of their project, to illustrate their results in a wider perspective and to
relate their own project to the works of others. Accordingly, students experience difficulties in
relation to perpective, abstraction and generalisation in their scientific writing as well.

Popular Science Writing as a Tool for Learning

Cronje et al. (2013) noted that there has been interest in education literature about science
writing performance as an articulation of students’ understanding of science concepts and
scientific reasoning. Using writing assignments to both develop and display students’ science
content knowledge and scientific literacy is the explicit focus of writing-to-learn strategies,
which Brequire students to reflect, consolidate, elaborate, reprocess concepts and ideas central
to the topic, to hypothesise, interpret, synthesise, and persuade, and hence to develop higher-
order thinking and the construction of a deeper understanding of science^ (Cronje et al. 2013,
p. 2719). Popular science writing may, as we have already discussed, not only contribute to
preparing students for their future working life but could also facilitate their subject under-
standing. This suggests that popular science writing training should be given greater impor-
tance in higher education, in particular in the natural sciences. An additional effect that
education in popular science writing may have is the general strengthening of students’ writing
skills. In popular science, as well as scientific writing, the writer’s awareness of text
structure is crucial, and an increased knowledge about different genres would contribute
to develop such awareness. Kelly and Takao (2002) developed a model for the assessment
of students’ arguments and use of evidence in writing. The model was used to analyse
students’ written texts in a university oceanography course, with the aim of identifying
factors that contribute to a text being well written (Kelly and Bazerman 2003). For this
purpose, student arguments were analysed through a process of sorting propositions by
epistemic level. The analysis showed that one of the most important features of the high
quality texts was their explicit links within and across epistemic levels, i.e., an argument
that tied together theoretical assertions and empirical data. In scientific writing, as in the
popular science genre, a key aspect for quality is the ability to build arguments by using
claims at different levels, from specific to general, to connect details with the whole. Other
features that were recognised in the high-quality student papers were coherence and the
way in which terms were introduced and recurred throughout the text. All these features,
which characterise a well-written scientific paper, also apply to a popular science article.
454 Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456

This suggests that popular science writing training would also enhance students’ skills in
the genre of scientific writing.
Hand and Prain (2002) acknowledged that any effective writing-to-learn task requires a rich
learning environment where students are provided with sufficient motivation, procedural
guidance and expert and peer on-going feedback in tackling the task or sequence of tasks.
We have found that students may develop their ability to discover new perspectives through
popular science communication. The ability is significant not only to their future working life
but also to their personal development and scientific literacy. Reading and writing in science
can serve the purpose of developing scientifically literate students in a way that also mean-
ingfully promotes their understanding of science concepts. To engage students to ask questions,
take notes while reading, find relevant information, generate meanings, evaluate, construct their
personal knowledge and communicate to others, become crucial aspects for their understanding
of science as being a part of their everyday world. From a science education perspective, it has
become evident that there is a lot to be gained by integrating the training of generic skills into
the subject content (Barrie 2006). Not least, the positive effect applies to communication skills,
which are preferably taught in a specific context (Blåsjö 2004). Other competencies that
particularly benefit from an integrated programme are the ability to take a stand and to argue
for this viewpoint, the ability to use communication as a means of learning, and the ability to
and preparedness for a changing work place (Barrie 2007). Together, these aspects advocate for
integrating communication training with the studies of subject matter.

Conclusions

If students are to use writing effectively for learning, then they need to understand that writing
can serve a range of purposes in learning science and in representing scientific ideas within the
broader community (Hand et al. 1999). However, writing can also be used to solve problems,
clarify ideas, speculate about possible alternative causes and explanations, and make prelim-
inary observations. In the context of this specific project, the students also needed to under-
stand that part of being scientifically literate (Rennie 2005) entails a willingness and a capacity
to contribute in writing to public debate on science issues. Such writing will often need to
inform, explain and clarify concepts for a non-expert readership and to persuade them to take
informed action. As such, students need to understand that their own writing, and responding
to the writing of others, is something which can provide opportunities to clarify their own
knowledge about particular concepts. In their popular science writing, the students needed to
write in order to promote the understanding of others. This task encouraged the students to link
their own engagement with scientific explanations to how this can be represented effectively in
writing for a teenager.
Writing training in the natural science field usually focuses on scientific papers. As we have
seen, there are several reasons why students’ writing should be more varied. This would help
the students to build a broader communication repertoire and to make them well equipped for
working life. It would also support qualitative learning, a wider understanding of the subject
and the development of scientific literacy. Here, the possibilities of popular science writing are
worth attention. Through the writing task, the students were encouraged to see their subject in
a wider context. This means that the students were also trained to deal with and critically
reflect on their subject from different viewpoints, argue for its significance and make decisions
based on their subject matter knowledge. These abilities, in turn, are crucial to a deeper subject
understanding. Popular science writing may therefore help to prepare students for being future
citizens, as well as challenge their conceptions of the science content. All together, this
Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456 455

supports the potential of popular science writing as a tool for learning and teaching in natural
science education.

References

Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology,
72(5), 593–604.
Barrie, S. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51,
215–241.
Barrie, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes. Studies in
Higher Education, 32, 439–458.
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: New
York Academic Press.
Blåsjö, M. (2004). Students’ writing in two knowledge-constructing settings. Stockholm studies in Scandinavian
philology. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Cronje, R., Murray, K., Rohlinger, S., & Wellnitz, T. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic to improve
undergraduate writing in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 35(16), 2718–2731.
Dysthe, O., Hertzberg, F., & Hoel, T. L. (2011). Writing to learn. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Gärdenfors, P., & Lindström, P. (2008). Understanding is experiencing a pattern. In P. Gärdenfors & A. Wallin
(Eds.), A smorgasbord of cognitive science (pp. 149–164). Nora: Nya Doxa.
Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: a
case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737–755.
Hand, B., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science
literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035.
Jidesjö, A., Oscarsson, M., Karlsson, K.-G., & Strömdahl, H. (2009). Science for all or science for some: what
Swedish students want to learn about in secondary science and technology and their opinions on science
lessons. NorDiNA, 5(2), 213–229.
Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: a rhetorical-semantic analysis.
Applied Linguistics, 24, 28–55.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students’
use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342.
Klein, P. D. (2004). Constructing scientific explanations through writing. Instructional Science, 32(3), 191–231.
Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199–226.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding–the complex nature of PCK in pre-service teacher education.
International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281–1299.
Nilsson, P. (2013). What do we know and where do we go? Formative assessment in developing student teachers’
professional learning of teaching science. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(2), 188–201.
Nilsson, P., & Loughran, J. (2012). Exploring the development of pre-service elementary teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 699–721.
North, S. (2005). Different values, different skills? A comparison of essay writing by students from arts and
science backgrounds. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 517–533.
Pelger, S. (2010). Generic competencies and employability of science alumni. Lund: Lund University.
Pelger, S. (2014) What, how and why do science students write? In A. Persson & R. Johansson (Eds),
Forskarperspektiv på kunskap, utbildning och skola – utbildningsvetenskaplig forskning vid Lunds
universitet (pp. 337–350). Lund: Department of Education Science, Lund University.
Pelger, S. & Santesson, S. (2012) Rhetoric in natural science. Writing to improve learning. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Pelger, S., Santesson, S. & Josefsson, G. (2009). Science students writing popular science. Lund: Lund
University.
Rennie, L. (2005). Science awareness and scientific literacy. Teaching Science, 51(1), 10–14.
Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., & Thompson, R. J., Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science
education: a community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(1), 17–25.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of
research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swedish Code of Statutes (SFS 1993:100). Higher Education Ordinance.
456 Res Sci Educ (2016) 46:439–456

Treise, D., & Weigold, M. F. (2002). Advancing science communication: a survey of science communicators.
Science Communication, 23(3), 310–322.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open
University.
Wolrath Söderberg, M. (2003). Are there shortcuts to wisdom? Rhetoric as the art of consideration. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.

View publication stats