A study of conceptual development in science education at two levels of verbalization

This study attempted to answer the following questions: 1. Is the level of reading difficulty of science materials significantly increased by scientific terminology? 2. Can the level of reading difficulty be lowered significantly by the removal of this terminology? 3. Can concepts be effectively learned when scientific vocabulary has been modified and presented in the "common" language of the students? Seven selected eighth grade science texts were found to be approximately three grade levels of reading difficulty above three eighth grade social science and English texts when compared by Fog and Dale-Chall indices. The indices also pointed to difficult technical terms as a major factor in increasing reading difficulty. A paraphrase of the technical presentation of atomic structure in the textbooks was prepared and then rewritten to reduce the technical vocabulary. This resulted in two separate treatments at different scientific verbal levels with the lower level five grades in reading difficulty below that of the technical level. A sample of 576 eighth grade students at Bryan, Texas, were given both treatments under a closed-book test rule while 208 students at Payson, Utah, were given the same treatments under an open-book test rule. Two Solomon Four-Group designs were used at each location. The first, for the technical level treatment, and the second, for the lower level treatment, were used to contrast the effectiveness of pretests, treatments, and any interactions. The students who were exposed to the low verbal treatment scored higher in all comparisons, although not significantly, than those exposed to the technical verbal treatment. This implies that students can develop initial concepts in science with little use of technical terms. The deletion of technical terms could be used effectively during introductory science courses or for students not deeply interested in science. Students who had received the lower verbal treatment could also respond with greater facility to higher verbal questions than the converse. There also appeared to be an increase in scores of students exposed to the low verbal treatment over those of the high verbal treatment when students were allowed to refer back to the material while responding to test items. This implies that technical wording may serve to disguise concepts. ..