Biology Undergraduate Students' Graphing Practice in Digital versus Pen and Paper Graphing Environments

Autor/inn/en	Gardner, Stephanie M.; Suazo-Flores, Elizabeth; Maruca, Susan; Abraham, Joel K.; Karippadath, Anupriya; Meir, Eli
Titel	Biology Undergraduate Students' Graphing Practice in Digital versus Pen and Paper Graphing Environments
Quelle	In: Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30 (2021) 3, S.431-446 (16 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Gardner, Stephanie M.) ORCID (Suazo-Flores, Elizabeth) ORCID (Meir, Eli)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1059-0145
DOI	10.1007/s10956-020-09886-w
Schlagwörter	Biology; Undergraduate Students; Graphs; Educational Technology; Computer Software; Freehand Drawing; Preferences; Science Instruction; Teaching Methods + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Biologie; Grafische Darstellung; Unterrichtsmedien; Drawing; Zeichnen; Teaching of science; Science education; Natural sciences Lessons; Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode
Abstract	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. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01