No abstract

The author is concerned about the methodology and instrumentation used to assess both graphing abilities and the impact of microcomputer-based laboratories (MBL) on students' graphing abilities for four reasons: (1) the ability to construct and interpret graphs is critical for developing key ideas in science; ( 2 ) science educators need to have valid information for making teaching decisions; (3) educators and researchers are heralding the arrival of MBL as a tool for developing graphing abilities; and (4) some of the research which supports using MBL appears to have significant validity problems. In this article, the author will describe the research which challenges the validity of using multiple-choice instruments to assess graphing abilities. The evidence from this research will identify numerous disparities between the results of multiple-choice and free-response instruments. In the first study, 72 subjects in the seventh, ninth, and eleventh grades were administered individual clinical interviews to assess their ability to construct and interpret graphs. A wide variety of graphs and situations were assessed. In three instances during the interview, students drew a graph that would best represent a situation and then explained their drawings. The results of these clinical graphing interviews were very different from similar questions assessed through multiple-choice formats in other research studies. In addition, insights into students' thinking about graphing reveal that some multiple-choice graphing questions from prior research studies and standardized tests do not discriminate between right answerslright reasons, right answers/wrong reasons, and answers scored "wrong" but correct for valid reasons. These results indicate that in some instances multiple-choice questions are not a valid measure of graphing abilities, In a second study, the researcher continued to pursue the questions raised about the validity of multiple-choice tests to assess graphing, researching the following questions: What can be learned about subjects' graphing abilities when students draw their own graphs compared to assessing by means of a multiple-choice instrument? Does the methodology used to assess graphing abilities: (1) affect the percentage of subjects who answer correctly; ( 2 ) alter the percentage of subjects affected by the "picture of the event" phenomenon? Instruments were constructed consisting of Science Education 78(6): 527-554 (1994)

To enhance the learning outcomes achieved by students, learners undertook a computer‐simulated activity based on an acid–base titration prior to a university‐level chemistry laboratory activity. Students were categorized with respect to their attitudes toward learning. During the laboratory exercise, questions that students asked their assistant teachers were used as indicators of cognitive focus. During the interviews, students' frequency and level of “spontaneous” use of chemical knowledge served as an indicator of knowledge usability. Results suggest that the simulation influenced students toward posing more theoretical questions during their laboratory work and, regardless of attitudes, exhibiting a more complex, correct use of chemistry knowledge in their interviews. A more relativistic student attitude toward learning was positively correlated with interview performance in both the control and treatment groups. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 44: 1108–1133, 2007

Learning and effective teaching are both complicated acts. However, many administrators, teachers, parents, and policymakers appear not to recognize those complexities and their significance for practice. Fueling this perception, recommendations from isolated research findings often neglect the complexities in learning and teaching, and when implemented in classrooms often fall well short of the advertised effect. Consequently, education research is generally ignored, and the resulting research-practice gap raises concerns regarding the utility of university-based teacher education, and education research more generally. However, the strength of education research resides in the synergy resulting from its integration into a unifying system that guides, but does not determine, decision-making. Dewey (1929) argued for teacher decision-making guided by education research, but recently several writers have justly criticized education researchers for not providing comprehensible assistance to educators and policymakers (Good, 2007;Shymansky, 2006;Windschitl, 2005). This paper proposes a decision-making framework for teaching to help beginning and experienced teachers make sense of education research, come to understand crucial teacher decisions, and how those decisions interact to affect student learning. The proposed decision-making framework for teaching has significant utility in the design of science methods courses, science teacher education programs, effective student teacher supervision experiences, and professional development workshops.

No abstract

This study investigates the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Seventy‐two subjects in 7th, 9th, and 11th grades were administered individual Piagetian tasks to assess five specific mental structures: (Euclidean spatial structures) (a) Placement and Displacement of Objects (maintaining horizontal and vertical reference frames) and (b) One–One Multiplication of Placement and Displacement Relations (coordinate systems); (c) Multiplicative Measurement; (d) Multiplicative Seriation; and (e) Proportional Reasoning. Graphing abilities were assessed by having the subjects construct and interpret numerous graphs of varying content and difficulty. To minimize the researcher's guesses about interpretation, each subject's answers and reasons were subsequently explored during a clinical interview. The results indicate significant relationships of logical thinking to graphing ability. Multiplicative seriation, multiplicative measurement, and Euclidean spatial structures positively influenced graphing abilities. Subjects who showed evidence of proportional reasoning did significantly better on many graphing situations including choosing the part of the graph with the greatest “rate of change.” Locating points on a graph without a grid was significantly related to horizontal/vertical frames of reference. Students who did not possess the logical thinking structures were more likely to be dependent upon, and influenced by, perceptual cues and less able to interpret or construct graphs correctly.

Developing zebrafish embryos were used as a model system for high school students to conduct scientific investigations that reveal features of normal development and to test how different environmental toxicants impact the developmental process. The primary goal of the module was to engage students from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds, with particular focus on underserved inner-city high schools, in inquiry-based learning and hands-on experimentation. In addition, the module served as a platform for both teachers and students to design additional inquiry-based experiments. In this module, students spawned adult zebrafish to generate developing embryos, exposed the embryos to various toxicants, then gathered, and analyzed data obtained from control and experimental embryos. The module provided a flexible, experimental framework for students to test the effects of numerous environmental toxicants, such as ethanol, caffeine, and nicotine, on the development of a model vertebrate organism. Students also observed the effects of dose on experimental outcomes. From observations of the effects of the chemical agents on vertebrate embryos, students drew conclusions on how these chemicals could impact human development and health. Results of pre-tests and post-tests completed by participating students indicate statistically significant changes in awareness of the impact of environmental agents on fish and human beings In addition, the program's evaluator concluded that participation in the module resulted in significant changes in the attitude of students and teachers toward science in general and environmental health in particular.

This article presents a detailed guide for high school through graduate level instructors that leads students to write effective and well-organized scientific papers. Interesting research emerges from the ability to ask questions, define problems, design experiments, analyze and interpret data, and make critical connections. This process is incomplete, unless new results are communicated to others because science fundamentally requires peer review and criticism to validate or discard proposed new knowledge. Thus, a concise and clearly written research paper is a critical step in the scientific process and is important for young researchers as they are mastering how to express scientific concepts and understanding. Moreover, learning to write a research paper provides a tool to improve science literacy as indicated in the National Research Council's National Science Education Standards (1996), and A Framework for K-12 Science Education (2011), the underlying foundation for the Next Generation Science Standards currently being developed. Background information explains the importance of peer review and communicating results, along with details of each critical component, the Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Specific steps essential to helping students write clear and coherent research papers that follow a logical format, use effective communication, and develop scientific inquiry are described.