THINKING LIKE A SCIENTIST: USING VEE-MAPS TO CONNECT SCIENTIFIC PROCESS WITH SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS

Christine M. Knaggs

Rebecca M. Schneider

The University of Toledo

CONNECTING PROCESS AND CONTENT Problem: Students have difficulty connecting the

content of science to the processes of doing science, and communicating their understanding through writing.

Purpose of study: To better understand how such connections are developed in the classroom through the use of writing in science. Connecting process and content is crucial (NRC,

2006), but difficult. (Kahle, Meece, & Scantlebury, 2000; McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006).

A possible approach in to develop a scaffold can be used to link scientific content to process (Eick, Meadows, & Balkcom, 2005; Land & Ge, 2004; McNeill et al., 2006, Novak, 1990; Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2002)

USING SCAFFOLDS IN SCIENCE

Inquiry-based lab approaches are key to developing scientific reasoning skills (NRC, 2006). A tool or scaffold is needed to facilitate both

teaching and learning during an inquiry-based lab activity (Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, & Freeman, 2005).

In this study, a generic scaffold will be used to facilitate several inquiry-based lab experiences in the classroom

Gowin’s vee-map is a scaffold that embodies the SDDS framework (Novak & Gowin, 1984)

GOWIN’S VEE-MAP

WRITING IN SCIENCE

This study focuses on developing students’ ability to explain their understanding of connections in science in writing.

Research shows that students need structured support to undertake science writing tasks

Research shows that scaffolds can effectively encourage the development of science writing skills in the classroom (Yore, 2003) We know less about how tools can help students

develop connections in science as evidenced through their writing over time and with multiple uses of a scaffold

LINKING CONTENT AND PROCESS

To organize our thinking, the authors used the Scientific Discovery as Duel Search (SDDS) framework (Klahr & Dunbar, 1988; Zimmerman, 2000). One model that integrates the process of doing

science (experimental design and evidence evaluation) and the concepts of science

One model that combines domain-general strategies (scientific process and reasoning skills) with domain-specific knowledge (scientific concepts)

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In what ways do scaffolds help students connect scientific process skills with scientific concepts while writing about science?

What is the effect of repeated use of a scaffold on the development of these connections in their writing?

METHODS 50 female participants in three freshman-level

biology classes at an all-girls Catholic school Class #1: “All Vee-Maps” (used maps three times) Class #2: “Limited Vee-Maps” (used maps once) Class #3: “No Vee-Maps” (did not use maps)

Three inquiry-based laboratory investigations completed in all groups over one semester: Osmosis Lab using potatoes and salt Photosynthesis Lab using elodea Natural Selection Simulation Lab

Instruments used Rubrics: adapted from a Scientific Reasoning Skills

Rubric at Blue Ridge Community College in Tennessee Survey: open-ended questions to ascertain student

responses to using vee-maps

METHODS: THE RUBRICS

Process skills are shown in green, and

concept understanding

skills are shown in yellow.

METHODS: THE RUBRICS

Rubrics were used to rate students’ ability to: Understand and apply scientific process skills by: asking

scientific questions, developing testable hypotheses, designing an experiment with clearly defined variables and a control, recording data clearly and concisely, and forming conclusions based on data collected

Understand and apply scientific concepts by: making connections between scientific concepts, using scientific knowledge to justify hypotheses, and basing conclusions on accurate scientific concepts

Process and concept scores, though included on one rubric, can be distinguished within the rubrics (as they have been with color-coding) and scored separately for comparative purposes. Likewise, the rubrics are similar to one another, thus vee-map and lab report scores were also compared.

FINDINGS: Process and concept scores for

laboratory investigation #1 similar across groups.

Differences between the three groups’ report scores became greater over time, with the “All Vee-Map” group making the most improvement over the course of the study

Survey– students in “All Vee-Maps” reported disliking vee-maps more often than the other group, but they also reported that vee-maps were a good organizational tool, helped them make connections, and they would use them in the future more frequently than the other group

A comparison of report #3 scores for all three groups

FINDINGS:

There was a significant lag in concept scores as compared with process scores for all three groups

This lag decreased over time for all three groups.

A comparison of process and concept scores for report 1 for all three groups

FINDINGS:

Vee-map and writing scores correlated a majority of the time, and became stronger for the “All Vee-Maps” group over time

Vee-map scores tended to be higher than writing scores, suggesting that vee-maps are pulling up the writing scores Exception: Vee-map #3

scores were lower than writing report #3 scores for “All Vee-Maps”

A comparison of vee-map and report

scores for “All Vee-Maps”

IMPLICATIONS

For students: Vee-maps not only help students to make connections between content and process in science, but also help them to understand how they learn (metacognition), and their ability to communicate their learning through writing

For teachers and administrators: Vee-maps can be supportive tools for teachers as

they guide students through inquiry-based lab experiences

Vee-maps and related scaffolds could be used to develop more effective K-12 science curriculum

For researchers: The vee-map as a long-term learning progression tool

—more research is needed

THE CIRCLE HEURISTIC: AN ALTERNATIVE TOOL TO THE VEE-MAP

The central location of the

concepts stresses that they provide a foundation for and can be modified by the experimental

process.

REFERENCESEick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into inquiry. The Science Teacher,

72(7), 49-53.

Ge, X., & Land, S.M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research Development, 52(2). 5-22.

Jeanpierre, B., Oberauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668-690.

Kahle, J.B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 1019-1041.

McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2006). Supporting students construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, B. D. (1984). Learning how to Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410-422.

Yore, L. D. (2003). Examining the literary component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.

REFERENCES

Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-55.

McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2006). Supporting students construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, B. D. (1984). Learning how to Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410-422.

Yore, L. D. (2003). Examining the literary component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.