Teaching science inquiry practices, especially the more contemporary ones, such as computational thinking practices, requires designing newer learning environments and appropriate pedagogical scaffolds. Using such learning environments, when students construct knowledge about disciplinary ideas using inquiry practices, it is important that they make connections between the two. We call such connections epistemic connections, which are about constructing knowledge using science inquiry practices. In this paper, we discuss the design of a computational thinking integrated biology unit as an Emergent Systems Microworlds (ESM) based curriculum. Using Epistemic Network Analysis, we investigate how the design of unit support students’ learning through making epistemic connections. We also analyze the teacher’s pedagogical moves to scaffold making such connections. This work implies that to support students’ epistemic connections between science inquiry practices and disciplinary ideas, it is critical to design restructured learning environments like ESMs, aligned curricular activities and provide appropriate pedagogical scaffolds.
more »
« less
Qualitative graphing in an authentic inquiry context: How construction and critique help middle school students to reason about cancer
Inquiry instruction often neglects graphing. It gives students few opportunities to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to take advantage of graphs, and which are called for by current science education standards. Yet, it is not well known how to support graphing skills, particularly within middle school science inquiry contexts. Using qualitative graphs is a promising, but underexplored approach. In contrast to quantitative graphs, which can lead students to focus too narrowly on the mechanics of plotting points, qualitative graphs can encourage students to relate graphical representations to their conceptual meaning. Guided by the Knowledge Integration framework, which recognizes and guides students in integrating their diverse ideas about science, we incorporated qualitative graphing activities into a seventh grade web‐based inquiry unit about cell division and cancer treatment. In Study 1, we characterized the kinds of graphs students generated in terms of their integration of graphical and scientific knowledge. We also found that students (
- Award ID(s):
- 1813713
- PAR ID:
- 10371349
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Volume:
- 56
- Issue:
- 7
- ISSN:
- 0022-4308
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 905-936
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)Abstract Graphing is an important practice for scientists and in K-16 science curricula. Graphs can be constructed using an array of software packages as well as by hand, with pen-and-paper. However, we have an incomplete understanding of how students’ graphing practice vary by graphing environment; differences could affect how best to teach and assess graphing. Here we explore the role of two graphing environments in students’ graphing practice. We studied 43 undergraduate biology students’ graphing practice using either pen-and-paper (PP) ( n = 21 students) or a digital graphing tool GraphSmarts (GS) ( n = 22 students). Participants’ graphs and verbal justifications were analyzed to identify features such as the variables plotted, number of graphs created, raw data versus summarized data plotted, and graph types (e.g., scatter plot, line graph, or bar graph) as well as participants’ reasoning for their graphing choices. Several aspects of participant graphs were similar regardless of graphing environment, including plotting raw vs. summarized data, graph type, and overall graph quality, while GS participants were more likely to plot the most relevant variables. In GS, participants could easily make more graphs than in PP and this may have helped some participants show latent features of their graphing practice. Those students using PP tended to focus more on ease of constructing the graph than GS. This study illuminates how the different characteristics of the graphing environment have implications for instruction and interpretation of assessments of student graphing practices.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Background This study investigates undergraduate STEM students’ interpretation of quantities and quantitative relationships on graphical representations in biology (population growth) and chemistry (titration) contexts. Interviews (
n = 15) were conducted to explore the interplay between students’ covariational reasoning skills and their use of disciplinary knowledge to form mental images during graphical interpretation.Results Our findings suggest that disciplinary knowledge plays an important role in students’ ability to interpret scientific graphs. Interviews revealed that using disciplinary knowledge to form mental images of represented quantities may enhance students’ covariational reasoning abilities, while lacking it may hinder more sophisticated covariational reasoning. Detailed descriptions of four students representing contrasting cases are analyzed, showing how mental imagery supports richer graphic sense-making.
Conclusions In the cases examined here, students who have a deep understanding of the disciplinary concepts behind the graphs are better able to make accurate interpretations and predictions. These findings have implications for science education, as they suggest instructors should focus on helping students to develop a deep understanding of disciplinary knowledge in order to improve their ability to interpret scientific graphs.
-
Abstract Reformed science curricula provide opportunities for students to engage with authentic science practices. However, teacher implementation of such curricula requires teachers to consider their role in the classroom, including realigning instructional decisions with the epistemic aims of science. Guiding newcomers in science can take place in settings ranging from the classroom to the undergraduate research laboratory. We suggest thinking about the potential intersections of guiding students across these contexts is important. We describe the Classroom‐Research‐Mentoring (CRM) Framework as a novel lens for examining science practice‐based instruction. We present a comparative case study of two teachers as they instruct undergraduate students in a model‐based inquiry laboratory. We analyzed stimulated‐recall episodes uncovering how these teachers interacted with their students and the rationale behind their instructional choices. Through the application of the CRM Framework, we revealed ways teachers can have instructional goals that align with those of a research mentor. For example, our teachers had the goals of “creating an inclusive environment open to student ideas,” “acknowledging students as scientists,” and “focusing students on skills and ideas needed to solve biological problems.” We suggest three functions of research mentoring that translate across the classroom and research laboratory settings: (1) build a shared understanding of epistemic aims, (2) support learners in the productive use of science practices, and (3) motivate learner engagement in science practices.more » « less
-
Socially relevant geoscience topics may be difficult for students to learn. For example, connecting hydraulic fracturing to Midwestern US earthquake swarms and using the fossil record to infer past Earth environments may challenge students because of their prior exposures to nonscientific explanations. Sociocognitive theoretical perspectives based on decades of developmental and educational psychology, as well as science education research posit that students may have particular difficulty in evaluating the connections between lines of scientific evidence and explanations. This challenge is especially daunting when students are confronted with various alternative explanations (e.g., scientific and nonscientific explanations). In the present study, we compared two types of scaffolds designed to facilitate Mid-Atlantic middle school students’ (N = 40) scientific thinking and learning about controversial geoscience topics when confronted with alternative explanations. In a less autonomy-supportive scaffold, participants were given four lines of evidence and two explanatory models, one scientific and one nonscientific. (Fracking; Supplementary Materials 1 & 2); in a more autonomy-supportive scaffold, students chose four of eight lines of evidence and two of three explanatory models, one scientific and two nonscientific (Fossils; Supplementary Materials 1 & 2). Quantitative analyses revealed that both activities facilitated students’ evaluations in shifting students’ judgments toward the scientific and deepening their knowledge, although the more autonomy-supportive activity had greater effect sizes. Structural equation modeling suggested that more scientific judgments related to greater knowledge at post-instruction for the more autonomy-supportive scaffold. These activities may help students develop more scientific evaluation skills, which are central to understanding geoscience content and science as a process.more » « less
