1. The Relationship Between Students’ Explanations and Their Interpretation of Inquiry Investigations Emily E. Scott, Kirsten D. Edwards, Charles W. Anderson
Carbon: Transformations in Matter and Energy
Helping readers see patterns in the data:
Summary statement
Take some space away from datatable at bottom
Remove AQ progress variable
Displaying question: Inquiry questions that look at mass balance as a way of tracing matter – here’s how done and the kinds of interpretations asked for (underlies LP). Different investigations post different kinds of challenges, so we are specifically noticing MB investigations
Student examples –
Can take out GGP table; then have representation of question in a block
Low correlation b/t Ex and In practices – a lot of students off the diagonal
Number who understand principles w/o understanding systme and vice versa
Students will need sig scaffolding, but it still makes sense to use investigations as illustrative tools before giving explanations
Understanding fundamental principles vs specifics of the system are weakly correlated
Pearson coefficients – vassar
On vs off diagonal
Introduction
Results
Inquiry Learning Progression Framework
Level
Formulating explanations (FE)
Interpreting and analyzing claims (IAC)
Critiquing claims with evidence (CCE)
High
Students successfully (a) connect macroscopic observations with atomic-molecular explanations and
(b) trace matter through processes
Students interpret claims as independent and matter-tracing; they distinguish between claims that violate matter conservation principles and those that are empirically testable
Students identify all matter pools in the data; use relationships among matter pools to critique matter-tracing claims AND apply accurate scientific principles consistently (empirical AND principled reasoning); may also use data to revise initial hypotheses about how a system functions
Medium (high/low)
Students demonstrate incomplete or confused scientific explanations
Students interpret claims as independent and matter-tracing and generally reason about each claim; use inaccurate principles or disagree with valid claims
Students identify all matter pools in the data or recognize there are unidentified matter pools; use relationships among matter pools to:
support claims that violate scientific principles,
support claims inconsistent with the data, or
disagree with claims consistent with the data (empirical OR principled reasoning); may also use data to revise initial hypotheses about how a system functions
Students interpret claims as matter-tracing but construct new claims that better represent the system (conceptual bricolage); may or may not use principles to analyze claims; may not address each claim
Students identify some matter pools in the data; use relationships among matter pools to critique claims; may retain initial ideas about system functioning that are misaligned with data and/or use inaccurate principles to evaluate claims
Low
Students use actors and enablers to explain phenomena
Students interpret claims as non-matter tracing; use cause and effect or force-dynamic reasoning to evaluate claims
Students identify some matter pools in the data; use patterns for individual matter pools to critique claims or recognize relationships among matter pools but don't relate them to the claims; may use perceived flaws in the experimental design to evaluate claims
Our inquiry learning progression framework contains 3 progress variables with 3-4 levels depending on progress variable.
We found a weak correlation between students’ explanatory practices and their arguments from evidence.
Pearson’s r for FE vs IAC: 0.40, t= 9.04, df=437, p<0.001
Pearson’s r for FE vs CCE: 0.36, t= 8.11, df=429, p<0.001
When comparing students’ explanations (FE) to their evaluation of claims (IAC), 50% scored equally as high on both questions; 37% scored higher interpreting claims than constructing explanations, while 13% did the opposite.
When comparing students’ explanations (FE) with critiquing claims with evidence (CCE), 55% scored equally as high on both questions; 23% scored higher interpreting claims than constructing explanations, while 22% did the opposite.
Relationship between students’ explanations (FE) and interpretation of claims (IAC) on written assessments
IAC
Level
Low
Med
High
Total FE
111
107 27
245 25 76 29
130 4 28 32 64
140
205 88
439
In the Carbon TIME project, inquiry investigations into carbon-transforming processes use a mass balance approach to help students trace matter through systems.
In this study, we investigated:
the ways students reasoned about multiple competing claims about carbon-transforming processes
how well students used mass balance data to evaluate competing claims describing different matter pathways
the relationship between students’ proficiency in constructing explanations and making arguments from evidence
Relationship between students’ explanations (FE) and critiquing claims with evidence (CCE) on written assessments
CCE
Level
Low
Med
High
Total FE
171 47 21
239 60 36 32
128 19 17 28 64
250
100 81
431
Methods
The inquiry learning progression framework was previously developed from 25 interviews of middle school, high school, undergraduate and graduate students.
Here, we evaluated the validity of the framework by using it to code 439 written student responses collected during the school year from Carbon TIME unit tests.
Conclusions
This study suggests student ability to construct explanations does not necessarily predict their ability to construct arguments from evidence.
Our findings have implications for instructional design regarding the preparation and scaffolding students need to interpret the results of matter-tracing investigations.
Animal growth inquiry assessment question: using mass balance data to understand how animals grow
Part 2: Student Responses
Part 1: Student Responses
Animal Growth Question, Part 1:
A class was interested in how animals grow. The teacher starts the lesson by telling his students that a cricket eats a lot of food per week but only gains a little bit of weight. The teacher asks, “What happened to the mass of the rest of the food?”
Three students shared their ideas about what happened. Choose whether you agree, disagree, or are not sure about each claim:
Daryll claims: “The cricket's body turned the mass of the food into energy in order to grow.”
Marisol claims: 'The cricket breathed out most of the extra mass of the food as gases, like CO2.”
Bai claims: “The cricket’s body got rid of most of the extra mass of the food as solid waste (feces).”
Provide an explanation. Why did you agree or disagree with each student’s claim that you did? What are you not sure about?
Animal Growth Question, Part 2:
The class generated some data. They measured the starting mass of 5 crickets and put each in their own container. Then they gave each cricket 3 grams of food and made sure the crickets always had the same amount of water. After one week, the students measured the mass of the cricket, leftover food and cricket feces. Below are the data they generated.
What patterns do you see in the data?
Which claim do you think is best supported by the data?
Daryll’s claim
Marisol’s claim
Bai’s claim
Explain how the patterns in the data support the claim that you chose.
Below are the data they generated. What patterns do you see in the data?
Which claim do you think is best supported by the data?
Explain how the patterns in the data support the claim that you chose.
 CCE Level
All of the crickets gained a bit of mass, with an average of .3 grams. The food mass decreased much more than the cricket mass increased, suggesting that the cricket wasn't using very much of the mass it took in. The food mass has an average decrease of 2.1 grams. The feces, however, was also just a fraction of the mass the food lost, at an average of .5 grams.
Marisol's claim
Marisol claimed that much of the food the cricket was eating was being exhaled, since the mass of the cricket barely increased. The evidence gathered by the students shows that the cricket ate an average of 2.1 grams, but only gained .3 grams. Since this leaves 1.8 grams of mass to be accounted for, the average .5 grams of feces doesn't account for hardly any of the mass lost. Therefore, the 1.3 unaccounted-for grams of mass have to have been exhaled.
High
The more food the cricket eats, the more mass it has and the more solid waste.
Bai's claim
As the cricket mass increases there is a decrease in mass of food because the cricket is eating it, and as it eats more food the more waste there is since the body can't keep all the molecules in.
Medium low
That they usually go up and keep going up but sometimes it goes down but then it goes right back up again. The more food he eats though, the more mass he gains, and the more solid waste comes out.
Because the more mass he eats the more waste he produces because it all cant go into his body. It has to come out.
Low
Student
Daryll’s claims (matter and energy conversion)
Marisol’s claim (matter lost as CO2)
Bai’s claim (matter lost as feces)
Provide an explanation. Why did you agree or disagree with each student’s claim that you did? What are you not sure about?
 IAC Level A
DISAGREE
AGREE
The cricket cannot change atoms into energy because atoms last forever. Therefore, Daryll's claim cannot be true. While the cricket does exhale a bit of the mass, most of the mass isn't exhaled. Marisol's claim is false because the cricket just exhales the waste products from chemical reactions in it's cells. Bai, however, is correct because the mass the cricket cannot use in the food, which is a majority of the food intake because the cricket only gains a little mass when it eats, exits the body as solid waste…
Medium high B
When a person/animal eats food, they digest it, when they first eat the food it's a large organic molecule as it moves through the small intestine and the molecules that aren't broken down they end up coming out of the body as waste.
Medium low C
I agree that the cricket does eat the food and it helps him grow as much as he eats. but some of it also turns into feces and and some of the food is stored and help them grow.
Low
This research is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation: A Learning Progression-based System for Promoting Understanding of Carbon-transforming Processes (DRL ), and Sustaining Responsive and Rigorous Teaching Based on Carbon TIME (NSF ). Additional support comes from the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, funded by the United States Department of Energy, from Place-based Opportunities for Sustainable Outcomes and High-hopes, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the United States Department of Energy, or the United States Department of Agriculture.