Teaching line graphs to tenth grade students having different cognitive developmental levels by using two different instructional modules

Research in Science and Technological Education

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 55-66

  Ates, Salih ^a   Stevens, J Truman ^a  

^a ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35348840841     PISSN: 02635143     EISSN: 14701138     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02635140308339     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. KOSSLYN, S.M., 1985. Graphing and human information processing. Journal of American Statistical Association, 80: 499–512.
2. ADAMS, D.D., and SHRUM, W.J., 1990. The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on the acquisition of line-graph construction and interpretation skills by high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8): 777–787.
3. APPEL, K., GASTINEAU, J., BAKKEN, C., and VERNIER, D., 1998. Physics with Computer, Portland, OR: Vernier Software.
4. ARKIN, H., and COLTON, R.R., 1940. Graphs How To Make and Use Them, New York: Harper & Brothers.
5. ARONS, A.B., 1983. Student patterns of thinking and reasoning: part one of three parts. The Physics Teacher, 21: 576–581.
6. ATES, S., 2001. “ The effects of computer applications on line-graphing skills of tenth grade students having different cognitive developmental levels ”. University of Kentucky. Doctoral dissertation.
7. BEICHNER, R.J., 1994. Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62(8): 750–762.
8. LAWSON, A.E., 1992. Using reasoning ability as the basis for assigning laboratory partners in nonmajors biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(7): 729–741.
9. LAWSON, A.E., 1978. The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15: 11–24.
10. LEINHARDT, G., ZASLAVSKY, O., and STEIN, M.K., 1990. Functions, graphs, and graphing: Task, learning, and teaching. Renew of Educational Research, 60(1): 1–64.
11. BERG, C.A., and PHILLIPS, D.G., 1994. An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4): 323–344.
12. BERG, C.A., and SMITH, P., 1994. Assessing students' abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments. Science Education, 78(6): 527–554.
13. BRASELL, H., 1987. The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24: 385–395.
14. BRASELL, H.M., and ROWE, M.B., 1993. Graphing skills among high school physics students. School Science and Mathematics, 93: 62–70.
15. CHAMBERS, J.M., CLEVELAND, W.S., KLEINER, B., and TUKEY, PA. 1983. Graphical Methods JOT Data Analysis, Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth & Brooks.
16. CAMPBELL, D.T., and STANLEY, J.C., 1963. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Design m Research, Chicago: Rand McNaIIy.
17. GLEMENT, J., 1989. The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(2): 77–87.
18. CLEVELAND, W.S., 1985. The Elements of Graphing Data, Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.
19. CULBERSTON, M.H., and POWERS, D.R., 1959. A study of graph comprehension difficulties. A-V Communication Review, 7: 97–110.
20. GLASS, G.V., and HOPKINS, K.D., 1995. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
21. KERSLAKE, DAPHNE. 1977. The understanding of graphs. Mathematics m schools, 6(2): 22–25.
22. LEVINE, T., and SCHMIDT, D.S., 1996. Classroom environment in computer integrated science classes: effects of gender and computer ownership. Research m Science & Technological Education, 14(2): 163–178.
23. LIEM, L.T., 1981. Imitations to Science Inquiry, Chino Hills, CL: Science Inquiry Enterprises.
24. LINN, M.C., LAYMAN, W.J., and NACHMIAS, R., 1987. Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: graphing skills development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12: 244–253.
25. MCDERMOTT, C.L., ROSENQUIST, L.M., and VAN ZEE, H.E., 1987. Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55: 503–513.
26. MCKENZIE, D.L., and PADILLA, M.J., Ejects of laboratory activities and written simulations on At acquisition of graphing skills by eighth grade students. paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, LA. April. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 244-780)
27. MCKENZIE, D.L., and PADILLA, M.J., 1986. The construction and validation of the test of graphing in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(7): 1–9.
28. MOKROS, J.R., and TINKER, F.R., 1987. The impact of microcomputer-based science labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4): 369–383.
29. PADILLA, J.M., MCKENZlE, L.D., and SHAW, L.E., JR. 1986. An examination of line graphing ability of students in grades seven through twelve. Scholl Science & Mathematics, 86: 20–26.
30. PINKER, S., March 1983. Pattern Perception and the Comprehension of Graphs, March, Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. (ED 043546)
31. ROTH, W.M., and MCGINN, M.K., 1996. Graphing: cognitive ability or practice?. Science Education, 81: 91–106.
32. ROTH, W.M., BOVEN, G.M., and MCGINN, M.K., 1999. Difference in graph-related practice between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research m Science teaching, 36(9): 977–1019.
33. STEIN, M.K., BAXTER, J.A., and LEINHARDT, G., 1990. Subject-mater knowledge and elementary instruction: a case from functions and graphing. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4): 639–663.
34. STUESSY, C.L., and ROWLAND, P.M., 1989. Advantages of micro-based labs: Electronic data acquisition, computerized graphing, or both?. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 8(3): 18–21.
35. SVEC, M.T., Effect of Micro-Computer based laboratory on graphing interpretation skills and understanding of motion. paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco. April. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383-551)
36. VOLZ, L.D., and SAPATKA, S., 1997. Physical Science with Computer, Portland: OR: Vernier Software.
37. WAVERING, J.M., 1989. Logical reasoning necessary to make line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(5): 373–379.
38. WEINTRAUB, S., 1967. Reading graphs, charts, and diagrams. Reading Teacher, 20: 345–349.