Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25185224›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2014

Connections between student explanations and arguments from evidence about plant growth.

Jenny M Dauer, Jennifer H Doherty, Allison L Freed, Charles W Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jenny M Dauer*School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68503 Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 jenny.dauer@unl.edu.
Jennifer H DohertyDepartment of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Allison L FreedDepartment of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Charles W AndersonDepartment of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigate how students connect explanations and arguments from evidence about plant growth and metabolism-two key practices described by the Next Generation Science Standards. This study reports analyses of interviews with 22 middle and high school students postinstruction, focusing on how their sense-making strategies led them to interpret-or misinterpret-scientific explanations and arguments from evidence. The principles of conservation of matter and energy can provide a framework for making sense of phenomena, but our results show that some students reasoned about plant growth as an action enabled by water, air, sunlight, and soil rather than a process of matter and energy transformation. These students reinterpreted the hypotheses and results of standard investigations of plant growth, such as van Helmont's experiment, to match their own understanding of how plants grow. Only the more advanced students consistently interpreted mass changes in plants or soil as evidence of movement of matter. We also observed that a higher degree of scaffolding during some of the interview questions allowed mid-level students to improve their responses. We describe our progress and challenges developing teaching materials with scaffolding to improve students' understanding of plant growth and metabolism.

Indexed as

Plant DevelopmentStudentsBotanyLearningQuercusTrees

Identifiers

PMID25185224
PMCPMC4152202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.