Exploring Multiliteracy Practices Among Grade 7 Special Science Students: A Phenomenological Study on the Integration of Scientific and Linguistic Literacies

Exploring Multiliteracy Practices among Grade 7 Special Science Students: A Phenomenological Study on the Integration of Scientific and Linguistic Literacies

Jean Lucille F. Espejon

General Luna National High School, Surigao del Norte, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0034

Received: 07 January 2025; Accepted: 11 January 2025; Published: 13 February 2025

ABSTRACT

Students’ scientific and linguistic literacies are crucial in all stages of research writing like data collection and presentation. These literacies are components of the broader concept of multiliteracy. In this regard, this paper explored the practice of multiliteracy in terms of scientific and linguistic literacies among the 22 Grade 7 Special Science Class students of General Luna National High School through data collection and presentation activities in research. This qualitative study utilized a phenomenological research design and gathered data through observation, interview, and open-ended questionnaires. Results revealed that although multiliteracy based on scientific and linguistic literacies was observed among the Grade 7 Special Science Class students, these literacies were still developing. Notably, scientific literacy based on science process skills and scientific attitudes, as well as linguistic literacy based on syntax and semantics, were only moderately exhibited. It is therefore concluded that the students possessed a foundational level of multiliteracy but lacked the comprehensive skills necessary for the effective integration of scientific and linguistic literacies in research activities. It is also suggested that the school should strictly re-implement the practice of Know, What, and Learn (KWL) chart and Interactive Reading Aloud (IRA) to develop students’ linguistic literacy. Similarly, the structured primary literature project and guided inquiry approach should be utilized to improve students’ scientific literacy.

Keywords: multiliteracy; scientific literacy; linguistic literacy; data collection; data presentation; KWL, IRA; structured primary literature project; guided inquiry approach

INTRODUCTION

In today’s world, a multiliterate student is not just someone who is able to read, write, listen and speak. He is rather someone who can understand and use any forms of texts, symbols, or media in improving his understanding. A multiliterate student therefore possesses the skills that allow him to express and understand ideas across fields, and societal as well as cultural changes (Daulay et al.,  2022).

Multiliteracy encompasses a wide array of aspects and in the context of this paper, it is defined based on scientific literacy (Eymur & Cetin, 2024) and linguistic literacy (Galloway et al., 2019) that allow the student-researchers to successfully undertake scientific inquiries and source-based tasks in Research. According to OECD (2019), a student is considered as a scientifically literate student if he possesses scientific knowledge, analyzes explanations, and proposes ways to find solutions to certain problems. Additionally, such student understands how to apply scientific data practically when making decisions on a daily basis (Ashbrook, 2020). A linguistically literate student on the other hand, is someone who masters syntax and semantics (Juma, 2019), and possesses the skills necessary in predicting word-level reading, spelling, and reading comprehension (Henbest, 2020).

 Students’ scientific literacy can be measured and improved when students are able to master the science process skills (Suryante et al., 2018) which include observing qualities, measuring quantities, classifying, experimenting, predicting, inferring, and communicating (Doyle, 2021; Kurniawati, 2021; & Duke University, 2022), and when they manifest scientific attitudes (Genci, 2015). Meanwhile, students’ linguistic literacy can be deduced based on language proficiency, syntax, and semantics or their ability to construct and interpret grammatically correct and meaningful sentences (Henbest, 2020).

Numerous studies on scientific literacy and linguistic literacy are undeniably existing. However, studies exploring scientific and linguistic literacies in the broader aspect of multiliteracy and its role in students’ conduct of scientific inquiry like research are lacking. Considering that: (1)  Filipino students obtained a score of 357 in scientific literacy – a score that is significantly lower than the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average of 489 points in PISA 2018 (Palines, 2021), (2) scientific and linguistic literacies are crucial in all stages of research writing like data collection and presentation activities yet studies are limited, and (3) COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected the General Luna National High School’s students productive skills such as speaking and writing, this study explored the scientific and linguistic literacy of Special Science Class students of the said school through data collection and presentation activities in Research 7. It further intended to propose intervention activities that could significantly improve students’ multiliteracy based on scientific and linguistic literacies.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. How evident is scientific literacy in the data collection activity?
2. How evident is linguistic literacy in the data presentation activity?
3. How evident are scientific and linguistic literacies in the data presentation activity?
4. Based on the results, what intervention activities can be proposed to further develop students’ multiliteracy in terms of scientific and linguistic literacies?

METHODOLOGY

The study made use of the phenomenological research design. It utilized observation, interview, and open-ended questionnaire to explore and describe how the students manifested multiliteracy in terms of scientific and linguistic literacies as they engaged in the data collection and presentation activities in Research 7. It employed purposive sampling technique where all the 22 Grade 7 Special Science Class students in General Luna National High School took part in the study after securing their informed assent and consent.

The study was composed of two (2) phases. Phase 1 was the data collection activity where the participants gathered data about teenage pregnancy through observation, interview, and survey questionnaire. Whereas, phase 2 was the presentation of data using tabular and graphical tools discussed by the teacher-researcher. The students’ data collection activity was focused on the issue of teenage pregnancy because it was a timely topic since General Luna National High School ranked 1 in the entire Schools Division of Siargao for teenage pregnancy during the conduct of the study.

Phase 1 is further subdivided into two (2) subphases: (1) observation, and (2) interview. The observation and interview were done individually by the participants wherein they gathered data about teenage pregnancy. The teacher-researcher then interviewed the participants on their experiences in the activity. Phase 2 was composed of three (3) subphases. In subphase 1, the participants tabulated their data. In subphase 2, the participants used graphs and charts for the data presentation activity. Everything that was observable in the class ranging from the display of science process skills to scientific attitudes, and to the analysis of syntax and semantics in the students’ output was jotted down for the analysis of data. To enrich the data which were obtained by the through observation and interview, an open-ended questionnaire (subphase 3) was distributed and completed by the participants.  Data analysis was done using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This section presents the findings and discussions of the study.

On the perceived evidence of scientific literacy in the data collection activity

Table 1. Scientific literacy based on science process skills

The table shows that out of the seven (7) basic science process skills, namely: observing, measuring, classifying, experimenting, predicting, inferring, and communicating (Kurniawati, 2023), only two (2) were evident in the students’ data collection activity. These are observing and communicating. These skills were manifested as evident in the students’ statements like:

“I used my eyes to see what the interviewee was wearing and other stuff. I also used my nose to smell if the interviewee smelled good or not. I tried sensing if the interviewee was confident in her answers, too.” – S11

“I observed the people in the school quadrangle using my five senses.”- S15

These sample statements are clear manifestations of students’ observing skill because they were able to collect information by observing individuals’ activities or physical traits in their natural environment (Duke University, 2022). As for the communicating skill, it was found that the participants’ responses such as:

“I asked him (the interviewee) if he was willing to be interviewed and I explained the reason for it.” – S16

“I approach the respondent nicely and with a smile. I asked permission if he could answer the survey questionnaire. I also explained the purpose of the activity and I told him that he can answer my questions in Tagalog or Sinurigaonon if he was not comfortable using English.” – S1

were signs that they were able to communicate well with the persons they interviewed because asking for permission is a sign of respect which is a component of a good communication skill. In addition, clarity and friendliness are also implied in the students’ statements which are again components of communication (Doyle, 2021).

However, although it is revealed that observing and communicating qualities were exemplified by the students in the data gathering activity, they failed to exhibited the other five science process skills. This implies that as to scientific literacy based on science process skills and in terms of data collection, the students were not that scientifically literate.

Table 2. Scientific literacy based on science scientific attitudes

 Table 2 presents that curiosity, open-mindedness, and honesty were among the scientific attitudes that the students were able to personify. These are implied in their respective testimony that goes:

“I am open to learn new things. I also do not get mad when my classmates correct me because when you make mistakes, you should learn how to fix that mistake so that you won’t do it again.” – S7

When asked about what he felt every time his classmates corrected his grammar, S4 also said, “It’s okay for me. I just let them correct me.” These statements along with the codes generated from the interview and open-ended questionnaire were proof that the students possessed curiosity, open-mindedness, and honesty. However, as to the extent of practice, it was found out that only half of the class exhibited all of these or at least two of these attitudes. This implies that the students only moderately exemplified scientific literacy based on scientific attitudes in the data collection activity. This is because according to Genci (2015), scientific literacy includes attitudes and values associated with scientific activities. Since attitude is pluralized in this statement, it means that it is collective and therefore, all scientific attitudes and values must be possessed by a person in order to be considered as a scientifically literate individual.

On the perceived evidence of linguistic literacy in the data presentation activity

Table 3. Linguistic literacy based on syntax

Table 3 reveals that the students were able to spot misspelled words and the fundamentals of grammar like capitalization, but they needed improvement in their use of tenses. This is because when asked to correct the following sentences, some students still had errors in their outputs.

As to semantics, the students were able to interpret the “No comment” as not knowing something in teenage pregnancy as presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Linguistic literacy based on semantics

The table implies that the students were capable of explaining a simple phrase, but when they were asked about their understanding of another not-so-complex statement, some students failed to do so as evident in the following.

These samples connote that the linguistic literacy of some students based on semantics was low because according to Mashinja and Mwanza (2019), semantics is the part of linguistics which explores meaning. This means that a student who is good in semantic can understand how the meaning is created, interpreted, and conveyed through language.

On the perceived evidence of scientific and linguistic literacies in the data presentation activity

Table 5. Scientific and linguistic literacies exhibited in the data presentation activity

As shown in Table 5, it is clear that although students’ basic communication skills were evident in the data collection activity, it was not the same in the data presentation activity. This is because the data in Table 5 suggest that the students had low level of oral proficiency in English as they constantly asked the teacher to speak in vernacular as they explained their data. This is evident in S19’s statement that goes:

“The interviewee said that she was aware that General Luna National High School has 12 teenage mothers this year. This number is not good because pregnancy can cause the student to―uno pay English nan moundang pagskuyla, Ma’am?”

The last phrase in vernacular from the statement can be translated as, “Ma’am, what is the English of dropping out from school?” Since S19 asked for the teacher’s help to translate his words into English, it indicates that his verbal communication in English was insufficient or he lacked proficiency in English. Because language proficiency is a component of linguistic literacy, it can therefore be deduced that students’ literacy in this aspect was low as compared to their scientific literacy. This is in accordance with the study of Henbest (2020) who asserted that linguistic awareness enables the individual to manipulate language.

Considering the aforementioned data and their interpretation, it is inferred that multiliteracy based on scientific and linguistic literacies in the Grade 7 Special Science Classroom through data collection and presentation activities were still developing. Therefore, to ensure that the students will successfully conduct research in the future, interventions must be planned and implemented.

On the Proposed Intervention Activities

 The results of this study prompted the researcher to propose the following intervention activities:

As to Improving Linguistic Literacy

1. Re-implementation of KWL Chart. KWL stands for Know, What, and Learn. This chart reflects student-driven learning (Comay, 2023) by requiring the student to write down what they know and what they want to know before they start discussing the lesson as well as jot down what they learned after discussing the lesson. KWL is not only effective in keeping track of students’ learning and reading comprehension, but can also improve students’ attitude and achievement in Science as what Alsalhi (2019) stated.
2. Implement Interactive Reading Aloud (IRA) using English-mediated materials before morning classes begin. Students’ reading comprehension, motivation, and fluency can all be improved through IRA practices (Ceyhan & Yildiz, 2020). This means that if reading aloud is constantly practiced during English, Science and other English instruction subjects, then it will positively affect students’ linguistic literacy.

As to Improving Scientific Literacy

1. Structured Primary Literature Project. This project will be adapted from Eslinger and Kent (2018) who claimed that students’ scientific literacy can be enhanced through both written and oral analysis of a primarily scientific article of their choosing. The teacher here will just guide the students through an iterative process of article selection to the completion of products.
2. Guided inquiry approach. This approach promotes active inquiry that employs critical, logical, and creative thinking abilities to provide answers to questions under the direction of the teacher. It is deemed effective in improving students’ scientific literacy skills (Aulia & Aulia, 2019).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiliteracy was partially exhibited by the students during the data collection and presentation activities. Although students demonstrated observing and communicating skills during data collection, they lacked proficiency in other components of science process skills, such as measuring, classifying, and predicting. Additionally, their scientific attitudes—curiosity, open-mindedness, and honesty—were only fairly exhibited, highlighting a gap in scientific literacy.

Furthermore, while the students were able to recognize and fix basic grammatical errors like spelling and capitalization, they struggled with the proper use of tenses and grammatical structures. Although semantic comprehension was evident, their outputs still require improvement in clarity and accuracy. Hence, the students possessed a foundational level of multiliteracy but lacked the comprehensive skills necessary for the effective integration of scientific and linguistic literacies in research activities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the findings, several recommendations were proposed for improving the students’ multiliteracies based on scientific and linguistic literacies. These recommendations encompassed the reimplementation of the KWL and implementation of IRA in all learning areas using English as medium of instruction, and adaption of structured primary literature and inquiry-based projects in science and research-related subjects. It is further recommended that mechanisms for the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of these intervention programs should be established to ensure its effectiveness and sustainability.

REFERENCES

1. Alsalhi, N. R. (2019). The Effects ofthe Use ofthe Know-Want-Learn Strategy (KWL) on Fourth Grade Students’ Achievementin Science at Primary Stage and Their Attitudes towards it. Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. https://www.ejmste.com/article/the-effects-of-theuse-of-the-know-want-learn-strategy-kwl-on-fourth-grade-studentsachievement-in-7790
2. Ashbrook, P. (2020). Becoming Scientifically Literate. Alexandria, Virginia.: Science Learning in the Early Years: Activities in PreK-12.
3. Aulia,  A. & Aulia, E. V. (2019). Improving Science Literacy Skills for High School Students Through Guided Inquiry-Based Learning. Advances in Computer Science Research, 95. https://doi.org/10.2991/miseic-19.2019.36
4. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5. Ceyhan, S. & Yıldız, M. (2021). The effect of interactive reading aloud on student reading comprehension, reading motivation and reading fluency. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(4), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2021.201
6. Daulay, U., Adisaputera, A. & Eviyanti, E. (2022). Multiliteracy-Based Teaching Materials To Improve Student Understanding. Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Seminar on Transformative Education and Educational Leadership, AISTEEL 2022, 20 September 2022, Medan, North Sumatera Province, Indonesia, ISSN 2593-7650. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.20-9-2022.2324513
7. Doyle, A. (2021, March 13). These are the communication skills employers look for in employees. The Balance. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/communication-skills-list-2063779
8. Duke   University       Library.           (2022).            Qualitative      Research:        Observation. https://guides.library.duke.edu/c.php?g=289813&p=1934020
9. Eslinger, M. & Kent, E. (2018). Improving Scientific Literacy through a Structured Primary Literature Project. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1186049.pdf
10. Eymur, G. & Çetin, P. S. (2024). Investigating the role of an inquiry-based science lab on students’ scientific literacy. Instructional Science, 743–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09672-w
11. Galloway, E. P., Qin, W., Uccelli, P. & Barr, C. D. (2019). The role of cross-disciplinary academic language skills in disciplinary, source-based writing: investigating the role of core academic language skills in science summarization for middle grade writers. Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09942-x
12. Gençi, M. (2015). The Effect of Scientific Studies on Students’ Scientific Literacy and Attitude. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.34.1.8
13. Henbest, V. S. (2020). The Relation of Linguistic Awareness Skills to Reading and Spelling in School-Age Children With and Without Autism Spectrum Disorder. (Doctoral    dissertation).   Retrieved         from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/5673
14. Juma, M. (2019). Syntax-Semantics Interface in Linguistic Theory. 2017(122), 41–66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330081080_Syntax-Semantics_Interface_in_Linguistic_Theory
15. Kurniawati, A. (2021). Science Process Skills and Its Implementation in the Process of Science Learning Evaluation in Schools. Journal of Science Education Research, 5(2), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.21831/jser.v5i2.44269
16. Mashinja, B. Z. & Mwanza, D. S. (2020). The Language of Literacy Teaching and Learning in a Multilingual Classroom: Is Silozi Appropriate in the Zambezi Region of Namibia? International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-0381.0703005
17.  Organization for Economic and Community Development (OECD). 2019. PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi. org/10.1787/b25efab8-en.
18. Palines, K. M. (2021). Facilitating factors of scientific literacy skills development among junior high school students. LUMAT, 546–569.
19. Suryanti, Ibrahim, M. & Lede, N. S. (2018). Process skills approach to develop primary students’ scientific literacy: A case study with low achieving students on water cycle. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 296, 012030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/296/1/012030