Biology Undergraduate Students’ Graphing Practice in Digital Versus Pen and Paper Graphing Environments

Biology Undergraduate Students’ Graphing Practice in Digital Versus Pen and Paper Graphing Environments
复制标题

生物学本科生在数字与笔和纸绘图环境中的绘图实践

DOI:
10.1007/s10956-020-09886-w
复制
发表时间:
2021
影响因子:
4.4
通讯作者:
Meir, Eli
Meir, Eli
中科院分区:
教育学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Gardner, Stephanie M.;Suazo-Flores, Elizabeth;Maruca, Susan;Abraham, Joel K.;Karippadath, Anupriya;Meir, Eli

文献摘要

参考文献

被引文献

相似文献

作图是科学家和K-16科学课程中的一项重要实践。图表可以使用一系列软件包来构建,也可以用笔和纸手工构建。然而,我们对学生的绘图实践如何随着绘图环境的不同而变化的理解是不完整的;不同的情况可能会影响如何最好地教授和评估绘图。在这里,我们探讨了两种绘图环境在学生绘图实践中的作用。我们研究了43名本科生使用纸笔(PP)(n=21)和数字绘图工具GraphSmarts(GS)(n=22)的绘图练习。分析参与者的图表和口头理由,以确定特征,如绘制的变量、创建的图表数量、绘制的原始数据与汇总数据、图表类型(例如,散点图、折线图或条形图)以及参与者对其图表选择的推理。无论绘制环境如何,参与者图表的几个方面都是相似的,包括绘制原始数据与汇总数据、图表类型和总体图表质量,而GS参与者更有可能绘制最相关的变量。在GS中,参与者可以很容易地制作比PP中更多的图表,这可能有助于一些参与者显示出他们绘图实践的潜在特征。那些使用PP的学生比使用GS的学生倾向于更关注构建图表的简易性。这项研究阐明了绘图环境的不同特征如何对指导和解释学生绘图实践的评估产生影响。
Graphing 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.
Infovis 和统计图形:不同的目标,不同的外观
DOI: 10.1080/10618600.2012.761137
发表时间: 2013
影响因子: 2.4
作者:
Andrew Gelman;Antony Unwin
通讯作者: Antony Unwin
DOI: 10.11619/africa1964.2001.preface1
发表时间: 2001
影响因子: 2.2
作者:
J. Tanaka
通讯作者: J. Tanaka
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20086
发表时间: 2005-12-01
影响因子: 4.6
作者:
Bowen, GM;Roth, WM
通讯作者: Roth, WM
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.16-08-0245
发表时间: 2017
期刊: CBE life sciences education
影响因子: --
作者:
Angra A;Gardner SM
通讯作者: Gardner SM
使用聚焦源的两区域共享声场控制的再现精度
DOI: --
发表时间: 2018
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
津國 和泉;黒川 翔瑠;池田 雄介;小坂 直敏
通讯作者: 小坂 直敏