Abstract
AbstractGraphing 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.
Funder
National Science Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Engineering,Education
Reference71 articles.
1. Aberg-Bengtsson, L. (2006). “Then You Can Take Half... Almost”—elementary students learning bar graphs and pie charts in a computer-based context. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 116–135.
2. Angra, A., & Gardner, S. M. (2016). Development of a framework for graph choice and construction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(1), 123-128.
3. Angra, A., & Gardner, S. M. (2017). Reflecting on graphs: Attributes of graph choice and construction practices in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 16(3), ar53.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2009). Conference Homepage. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A view for the 21st century. (accessed July 7, 2019).https://www.visionandchange.org
5. Beggrow, E.P, Ha, M., Nehm, R.H., Pearl D, & Boone, W.J. (2014) Assessing scientific practices using machine-learning methods: how closely do they match clinical interview performance? Journal of Science Education and Technology, v23 n1 p160–182 Feb 2014.
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献