ArticleCBE life sciences education2014
Connections between student explanations and arguments from evidence about plant growth.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Teaching Metabolism in Upper-Division Undergraduate Biochemistry Courses using Online Computational Systems and Dynamical Models Improves Student Performance.CBE life sciences education · 2021Article
- Learning Progressions: An Empirically Grounded, Learner-Centered Framework to Guide Biology Instruction.CBE life sciences education · 2019Article
- The Greatest Learning Return on Your Pedagogical Investment: Alignment, Assessment or In-Class Instruction?PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.