Graphing Skills

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 forby 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 under explored 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 (n= 30) using the unit made significant learn-ing gains based on their pretest to post-test scores. In Study2, we compared students' performance in two versions of the same unit: One that had students construct, and second that had them critique qualitative graphs. Results showed that both activities had distinct benefits, and improved students' (n= 117) integrated understanding of graphs and science. Specifically, critiquing graphs helped students improve their scientific explanations within the unit, while constructing graphs led students to link key science ideas within both their in-unit and post-unit explanations. We dis-cuss the relative affordances and constraints of critique and construction activities, and observe students' common mis-understandings of graphs. In all, this study offers a critical exploration of how to design instruction that simultaneously supports students' science and graph understanding within complex inquiry contexts. READ PUBLISHED VERSION HERE: https://rdcu.be/bnuat

Prior graphing research has demonstrated that clinical interviews and free- response instruments produce very different results than multiple-choice instruments, indicating potential validity problems when using multiple-choice instruments to assess graphing skills (Berg & Smith in Science Education, 78(6), 527–554, 1994). Extending this inquiry, we studied whether empirically derived, participant-generated graphs used as choices on the multiple-choice graphing instrument produced results that corresponded to participants’ responses on free-response instruments. The 5 – 8 choices on the multiple- choice instrument came from graphs drawn by 770 participants from prior research on graphing (Berg, 1989; Berg & Phillips in Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 323–344, 1994; Berg & Smith in Science Education, 78(6), 527–554, 1994). Statistical analysis of the 736 7th – 12th grade participants indicate that the empirically derived multiple-choice format still produced significantly more picture-of-the-event responses than did the free-response format for all three graphing questions. For two of the questions, participants who drew graphs on the free-response instruments produced significantly more correct responses than those who answered multiple-choice items. In addition, participants having “low classroom performance” were affected more significantly and negatively by the multiple-choice format than participants having “medium” or “high classroom performance.” In some cases, prior research indicating the prevalence of “picture-of-the-event” and graphing treatment effects may be spurious results, a product of the multiple-choice item format and not a valid measure of graphing abilities. We also examined how including a picture of the scenario on the instrument versus only a written description affected responses and whether asking participants to add marker points to their constructed or chosen graph would overcome the short-circuited thinking that multiple-choice items seem to produce.

Prior graphing research has demonstrated that clinical interviews and free-response instruments produce very different results than multiple-choice instruments, indicating potential validity problems when using multiple-choice instruments to assess graphing skills (Berg & Smith in Science Education, 78(6), 527–554, 1994). Extending this inquiry, we studied whether empirically derived, participant-generated graphs used as choices on the multiple-choice graphing instrument produced results that corresponded to participants’ responses on free-response instruments. The 5 – 8 choices on the multiple-choice instrument came from graphs drawn by 770 participants from prior research on graphing (Berg, 1989; Berg & Phillips in Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 323–344, 1994; Berg & Smith in Science Education, 78(6), 527–554, 1994). Statistical analysis of the 736 7th – 12th grade participants indicate that the empirically derived multiple-choice format still produced significantly more “picture-of-the-event” responses than did the free-response format for all three graphing questions. For two of the questions, participants who drew graphs on the free-response instruments produced significantly more correct responses than those who answered multiple-choice items. In addition, participants having “low classroom performance” were affected more significantly and negatively by the multiple-choice format than participants having “medium” or “high classroom performance.” In some cases, prior research indicating the prevalence of “picture-of-the-event” and graphing treatment effects may be spurious results, a product of the multiple-choice item format and not a valid measure of graphing abilities. We also examined how including a picture of the scenario on the instrument versus only a written description affected responses and whether asking participants to add marker points to their constructed or chosen graph would overcome the short-circuited thinking that multiple-choice items seem to produce.

Graphs are visual representations of data and play a vital role in science communication, yet past studies have shown that students in K-16 struggle with graph choice and construction. To advance graphing skills, we developed two learning and instructional materials: Guide to data displays and step-by-step guide to data communication. Here, we briefly highlight the purpose, development, and usage of these materials, which increase students’ knowledge with common graphs and provide a guiding framework for data presentation.

This study examined to what extent inquirybased instruction supported with real-time graphing technology improves fourth grader's ability to interpret graphs as representations of physical science concepts such as motion and temperature. This study also examined whether there is any difference between inquiry-based instruction supported with real-time graphing software and inquirybased instruction supported with traditional laboratory equipment in terms of improving fourth graders' ability to interpret motion and temperature graphs. Results of this study showed that there is a significant advantage in using real-time graphing technology to support fourth graders' ability to interpret graphs.

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 forby 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 under explored 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 (n= 30) using the unit made significant learn-ing gains based on their pretest to post-test scores. In Study2, we compared students' performance in two versions of the same unit: One that had students construct, and second that had them critique qualitative graphs. Results showed that both activities had distinct benefits, and improved students' (n= 117) integrated understanding of graphs and science. Specifically, critiquing graphs helped students improve their scientific explanations within the unit, while constructing graphs led students to link key science ideas within both their in-unit and post-unit explanations. We dis-cuss the relative affordances and constraints of critique and construction activities, and observe students' common mis-understandings of graphs. In all, this study offers a critical exploration of how to design instruction that simultaneously supports students' science and graph understanding within complex inquiry contexts. READ PUBLISHED VERSION HERE: https://rdcu.be/bnuat

This study examines how students perceive their learning of creating and analyzing data in an introductory inquiry chemistry course at a college level that features oral presentations in student-centered discussions. A student Participant Perception Indicator (PPI) survey was administered in order to obtain data on student perceptions with respect to their own data-creation and data-analysis skills, which skills are essential for learning and understanding science. These student perceptions regarding gaining knowledge were consistently higher than their perceptions regarding gaining confidence and experience; however, both the confidence and the experience measures increased significantly as a semester progressed. Further, significant differences in student perceptions were found to exist between students who made oral presentations and students who did not. This finding strongly supports the active learning theory, i.e., learning by doing, and strongly encourages student participation in knowledge creation. Findings were also analyzed according to student demographics (gender, school) to determine patterns for different populations within the groups of students. Such analysis is important for instructors and for course designers to enable them to adjust their manner of teaching based on student demographic information in their classes, and to adjust the provided feedback and guidance, as needed.