Qualitative graphing in an authentic inquiry context: How construction and critique help middle school students to reason about cancer

Abstract

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 for by 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 underexplored 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 learning gains based on their pretest to post‐test scores. In Study 2, 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 discuss the relative affordances and constraints of critique and construction activities, and observe students' common misunderstandings 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.

Longitudinal impact of interactive science activities: Developing, implementing, and validating a graphing integration inventory

“…Given the challenges that previous researchers have shown in studying the development of graph analysis skills on their own or combined with different disciplinary content (cf., Åberg‐Bengtsson & Ottosson, 2006; Huang et al, 2016; Huestegge & Pötzsch, 2018; Mautone & Mayer, 2007; Ratwani et al, 2008; Saß et al, 2017), our study suggests that careful attention should be paid to how technology can support such learning and assessment. Indeed, as we have shown in our past experiments (Lai et al, 2016; Matuk et al, 2019) and meta‐analysis (Donnelly‐Hermosillo et al, 2020), technology enhanced learning environments play a pivotal role in the development of such capabilities to use graphs to learn disciplinary knowledge in complex ways. It is with these findings in mind that we argue for the use of platforms like WISE to support both the learning and assessment of students' capabilities to use graphs to connect their science learning.…”

“…It also illuminated the importance of graph type for assessment instruments that seek to measure such capabilities. Matuk, Zhang, Uk, and Linn (2019) had similar findings when instruction featured designed strategies (graph construction or the critiquing of premade graphs) where students could develop sophisticated graph comprehension skills as reflected in gains in Knowledge Integration.…”

“…These findings (Matuk et al, 2019) showed that each strategy supported students in distinctly different types of learning related to graphs. When students critiqued pre‐made graphs, they developed better pattern recognition.…”

Supporting primary school students’ reasoning about motion graphs through physical experiences

“…This graph sense reflects the ability to look at the represented information at a qualitative global level, becoming sensitive to and focusing on a general trend in the graph itself (Leinhardt et al 1990). More specifically, graph interpretation on a global scale implies "looking at the entire graph (or parts of it) and gaining meaning about the relationship between the two variables and, in particular, their pattern of co-variation" (Leinhardt et al 1990, p. 11), whereas graph construction implies the visualization of a certain relationship as representing shapes of trends on the graphs' axes (Matuk et al 2019).…”

Global Trends in Practical Education Research 2019–2020: A Systematic Review

“…Manahanm, 2006;Marteel, 2014;Nehring, 2019;Short et al, 2019;Timmer et al, 2018;Skonchal, 2011;Esichaikul et al, 2011;Trybula et al,2009; .) (Georgia et al, 2019;Anderje et al, 2019;Ana et al, 2019;Bachtold et al, 2019;Matuk et al, 2019;Fiedler et al, 2019;Maja et al, 2019;Höft et al, 2019;leuchter & Naber, 2019;Gillespie & Rouse, 2019;Ryoo & Bedell, 2019;Ines, 2019;Elena et al, 2019;Baumflak et al, 2019;She et al, 2019;Curry et al, 2020;Vallera & Bodzin, 2020;Carigetal et al, 2019;Acar, 2019;Sondergeld et al, 2020;Redmond & Cutke, 2020;Lane et al, 2019;Hawley & Sinatra, 2019;Marco etal, 2020) • ‫مع‬ ‫مستخدمه‬ ‫املقارن‬ ‫الوصفي‬ ‫املنهج‬ ‫على‬ ‫اعتمدت‬ ‫اسات‬ ‫در‬ ‫امل‬ ANNOVA ‫القياس‬ ‫موضع‬ ‫املتغير‬ ‫في‬ ‫املتعددة‬ ‫املجموعات‬ ‫بين‬ ‫املتعددة‬ ‫للمقارنات‬ ، ‫ومن‬ ‫اسات:‬ ‫الدر‬ ‫تلك‬ ‫أمثلة‬ Bachtuld et al, 2019;Al-balushi & Martine et al, 2019;Cuzzolino et al, 2019;Plotz, 2019;Eames et al, 2020;Yang et al, 2020;Wikie et al, 2020;Adam, 2019;Hwang et al, 2020;…”