THINKING LIKE A SCIENTIST: USING VEE-MAPS TO CONNECT SCIENTIFIC PROCESS WITH SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS Christine M. Knaggs Rebec...
CONNECTING PROCESS AND CONTENT <ul><li>Problem : Students have difficulty connecting the content of science to the process...
USING SCAFFOLDS IN SCIENCE <ul><li>Inquiry-based lab approaches are key to developing scientific reasoning skills (NRC, 20...
GOWIN’S VEE-MAP
WRITING IN SCIENCE <ul><li>This study focuses on developing students’ ability to explain their understanding of connection...
LINKING CONTENT AND PROCESS <ul><li>To organize our thinking, the authors used the Scientific Discovery as Duel Search (SD...
RESEARCH QUESTIONS <ul><li>In what ways do scaffolds help students connect scientific process skills with scientific conce...
METHODS <ul><li>50 female participants in three freshman-level biology classes at an all-girls Catholic school </li></ul>...
METHODS: THE RUBRICS Process skills are shown in green , and concept understanding skills are shown in yellow .
METHODS: THE RUBRICS <ul><li>Rubrics were used to rate students’ ability to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand and apply sc...
FINDINGS: <ul><li>Process and concept scores for laboratory investigation #1 similar across groups. </li></ul><ul><li>Diff...
FINDINGS: <ul><li>There was a significant lag in concept scores as compared with process scores for all three groups </li>...
FINDINGS: <ul><li>Vee-map and writing scores correlated a majority of the time, and became stronger for the “All Vee-Maps”...
IMPLICATIONS <ul><li>For students: Vee-maps not only help students to make connections between content and process in scie...
THE CIRCLE HEURISTIC: AN ALTERNATIVE TOOL TO THE VEE-MAP The central location of the concepts stresses that they provide a...
REFERENCES <ul><li>Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into inquiry. The Science Teacher , 72(7), 49-53...
REFERENCES <ul><li>Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, ...
of 17

NARST Presentation

Paper Presentation at the 2010 NARST International Conference in Philadelphia, PA
Published on: Mar 3, 2016
Source: www.slideshare.net


Transcripts - NARST Presentation

  • 1. THINKING LIKE A SCIENTIST: USING VEE-MAPS TO CONNECT SCIENTIFIC PROCESS WITH SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS Christine M. Knaggs Rebecca M. Schneider The University of Toledo
  • 2. CONNECTING PROCESS AND CONTENT <ul><li>Problem : Students have difficulty connecting the content of science to the processes of doing science, and communicating their understanding through writing. </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose of study : To better understand how such connections are developed in the classroom through the use of writing in science. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Connecting process and content is crucial (NRC, 2006), but difficult. (Kahle, Meece, & Scantlebury, 2000; McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A possible approach in to develop a scaffold can be used to link scientific content to process (Eick, Meadows, & Balkcom, 2005; Land & Ge, 2004; McNeill et al., 2006, Novak, 1990; Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2002) </li></ul>
  • 3. USING SCAFFOLDS IN SCIENCE <ul><li>Inquiry-based lab approaches are key to developing scientific reasoning skills (NRC, 2006). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A tool or scaffold is needed to facilitate both teaching and learning during an inquiry-based lab activity (Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, & Freeman, 2005). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In this study, a generic scaffold will be used to facilitate several inquiry-based lab experiences in the classroom </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gowin’s vee-map is a scaffold that embodies the SDDS framework (Novak & Gowin, 1984) </li></ul></ul>
  • 4. GOWIN’S VEE-MAP
  • 5. WRITING IN SCIENCE <ul><li>This study focuses on developing students’ ability to explain their understanding of connections in science in writing. </li></ul><ul><li>Research shows that students need structured support to undertake science writing tasks </li></ul><ul><li>Research shows that scaffolds can effectively encourage the development of science writing skills in the classroom (Yore, 2003) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We know less about how tools can help students develop connections in science as evidenced through their writing over time and with multiple uses of a scaffold </li></ul></ul>
  • 6. LINKING CONTENT AND PROCESS <ul><li>To organize our thinking, the authors used the Scientific Discovery as Duel Search (SDDS) framework (Klahr & Dunbar, 1988; Zimmerman, 2000). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One model that integrates the process of doing science (experimental design and evidence evaluation) and the concepts of science </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One model that combines domain-general strategies (scientific process and reasoning skills) with domain-specific knowledge (scientific concepts) </li></ul></ul>
  • 7. RESEARCH QUESTIONS <ul><li>In what ways do scaffolds help students connect scientific process skills with scientific concepts while writing about science? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the effect of repeated use of a scaffold on the development of these connections in their writing? </li></ul>
  • 8. METHODS <ul><li>50 female participants in three freshman-level biology classes at an all-girls Catholic school </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Class #1: “All Vee-Maps” (used maps three times) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Class #2: “Limited Vee-Maps” (used maps once) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Class #3: “No Vee-Maps” (did not use maps) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Three inquiry-based laboratory investigations completed in all groups over one semester: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Osmosis Lab using potatoes and salt </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Photosynthesis Lab using elodea </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Natural Selection Simulation Lab </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Instruments used </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rubrics: adapted from a Scientific Reasoning Skills Rubric at Blue Ridge Community College in Tennessee </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Survey: open-ended questions to ascertain student responses to using vee-maps </li></ul></ul>
  • 9. METHODS: THE RUBRICS Process skills are shown in green , and concept understanding skills are shown in yellow .
  • 10. METHODS: THE RUBRICS <ul><li>Rubrics were used to rate students’ ability to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand and apply scientific process skills by: asking scientific questions, developing testable hypotheses, designing an experiment with clearly defined variables and a control, recording data clearly and concisely, and forming conclusions based on data collected </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand and apply scientific concepts by: making connections between scientific concepts, using scientific knowledge to justify hypotheses, and basing conclusions on accurate scientific concepts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Process and concept scores, though included on one rubric, can be distinguished within the rubrics (as they have been with color-coding) and scored separately for comparative purposes. Likewise, the rubrics are similar to one another, thus vee-map and lab report scores were also compared. </li></ul>
  • 11. FINDINGS: <ul><li>Process and concept scores for laboratory investigation #1 similar across groups. </li></ul><ul><li>Differences between the three groups’ report scores became greater over time, with the “All Vee-Map” group making the most improvement over the course of the study </li></ul><ul><li>Survey– students in “All Vee-Maps” reported disliking vee-maps more often than the other group, but they also reported that vee-maps were a good organizational tool, helped them make connections, and they would use them in the future more frequently than the other group </li></ul>A comparison of report #3 scores for all three groups
  • 12. FINDINGS: <ul><li>There was a significant lag in concept scores as compared with process scores for all three groups </li></ul><ul><li>This lag decreased over time for all three groups. </li></ul>A comparison of process and concept scores for report 1 for all three groups
  • 13. FINDINGS: <ul><li>Vee-map and writing scores correlated a majority of the time, and became stronger for the “All Vee-Maps” group over time </li></ul><ul><li>Vee-map scores tended to be higher than writing scores, suggesting that vee-maps are pulling up the writing scores </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Exception: Vee-map #3 scores were lower than writing report #3 scores for “All Vee-Maps” </li></ul></ul>A comparison of vee-map and report scores for “All Vee-Maps ”
  • 14. IMPLICATIONS <ul><li>For students: Vee-maps not only help students to make connections between content and process in science, but also help them to understand how they learn (metacognition), and their ability to communicate their learning through writing </li></ul><ul><li>For teachers and administrators: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vee-maps can be supportive tools for teachers as they guide students through inquiry-based lab experiences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vee-maps and related scaffolds could be used to develop more effective K-12 science curriculum </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For researchers: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The vee-map as a long-term learning progression tool—more research is needed </li></ul></ul>
  • 15. THE CIRCLE HEURISTIC: AN ALTERNATIVE TOOL TO THE VEE-MAP The central location of the concepts stresses that they provide a foundation for and can be modified by the experimental process.
  • 16. REFERENCES <ul><li>Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into inquiry. The Science Teacher , 72(7), 49-53. </li></ul><ul><li>Ge, X., & Land, S.M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research Development , 52(2). 5-22. </li></ul><ul><li>Jeanpierre, B., Oberauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 42(6), 668-690. </li></ul><ul><li>Kahle, J.B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 37(9), 1019-1041. </li></ul><ul><li>McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2006). Supporting students construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences , 15(2), 153-191. </li></ul><ul><li>Novak, J. D., & Gowin, B. D. (1984). Learning how to Learn . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (5), 410-422. </li></ul><ul><li>Yore, L. D. (2003). Examining the literary component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (6), 689-725. </li></ul>
  • 17. REFERENCES <ul><li>Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-55. </li></ul><ul><li>McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2006). Supporting students construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences , 15(2), 153-191. </li></ul><ul><li>Novak, J. D., & Gowin, B. D. (1984). Learning how to Learn . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (5), 410-422. </li></ul><ul><li>Yore, L. D. (2003). Examining the literary component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (6), 689-725. </li></ul>

Related Documents