The authors conducted think-aloud interviews to reveal differences in reasoning and graph quality among undergraduate biology students, graduate students, and professors in a pen-and-paper graphing task. Similarities and differences between participant groups and the reasoning that occurred during planning, construction, and reflection phases are discussed.

COLLECTING, understanding, and interpreting data are key skills that all students should master (8,12,22, 33). Research on graph interpretation and basic construction is extensive, and student difficulties, primarily in K-12 type settings, have been well documented [e.g., graph choice (30,32,45), labels for axes (30,32), variables (45), and scaling axes (1,7,32,34)].Although many instructional books exist on graphing (5, 20, 28, 47), they do not focus on the complex reasoning behind graph choice and construction. It is insufficient to choose an appropriate graph for data (e.g., bar graph for categorical data) without evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of using a particular graph.Metarepresentational competence (MRC) refers to the knowledge required for successful construction and reasoning with external representations, which includes graphs ( 14). MRC has several components that reveal students' ability and inability with graph choice, construction, and critique (15). Specifically, these areas are invention, critique, functioning, and learning or reflection (Table 1) (15). The first area, invention, reveals students' underlying skills and abilities that allow them to conceive novel graphical representations from data (15). The second area, critique, exposes students' critical knowledge that is essential for assessing various types of graphs and their strengths and weaknesses (15). The third area, functioning, unearths students' reasoning for understanding the purpose of different types of graphs and the usage being dependent on the type of data present (15). The final area, learning or reflection, reveals students' awareness of their own understanding of graphs (15).

Understanding interactions between harmful algal bloom (HAB) species and their grazers is essential for determining mechanisms of bloom proliferation and termination. We exposed the common calanoid copepod, Temora longicornis to the HAB species Alexandrium fundyense and examined effects on copepod survival, ingestion, egg production and swimming behaviour. A. fundyense was readily ingested by T. longicornis and significantly altered copepod swimming behaviour without affecting copepod survival or fitness. A. fundyense caused T. longicornis to increase their swimming speed, and the straightness of their path long after the copepods had been removed from the A. fundyense treatment. Models suggest that these changes could lead to a 25-56% increase in encounter frequency between copepods and their predators. This work highlights the need to determine how ingesting HAB species alters grazer behaviour as this can have significant impacts on the fate of HAB toxins in marine systems.

As undergraduate biology curricula increasingly aim to provide students with access to courses and experiences that engage them in the practices of science, tools are needed for instruction, evaluation, and research around student learning. One of the important skills for undergraduate biology students to master is the selection and creation of appropriate graphs to summarize data they acquire through investigations in their course work and research experiences. Graphing is a complex skill, and there are few, discipline-informed tools available for instructors, students, and researchers to use. Here, we describe the development of a graph rubric informed by literature from the learning sciences, statistics, representations literature, and feedback and use of the rubric by a variety of users. The result is an evidence-based, analytic rubric that consists of categories essential for graph choice and construction: graph mechanics, graph communication, and graph choice. Each category of the rubric can be evaluated at three levels of achievement. Our analysis demonstrates the potential for the rubric to provide formative feedback to students and allow instructors to gauge and guide learning and instruction. We further discuss and identify potentially interesting research targets for science education researchers.

No abstract