A Taxonomic Scheme for Propositional Analysis

1
A Taxonomic Scheme for Propositional Analysis
Jerson Geraldo Romano Jr Universidade de São
Paulo, Programa de Pós-Graduação Interunidades em
Ensino de Ciências Paulo R. M.
Correia Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de
Artes Ciências e Humanidades prmc_at_usp.br
2
(No Transcript)
3
(No Transcript)
4
Literature review

• Dynamic thinking CMs

5
Literature review
6
Literature review
7
Literature review

• Dynamic thinking MCs

8
Literature review

• Causative non-causative propositions

9
Our taxonomic scheme
10
Research objective

• Develop a taxonomic scheme for propositional
  analysis
• Compare Cmaps made by different students
• Science-Technology-Society approach

Our hypothesis

• More dynamic propositions, more understanding
  about STS

11
Data collection

• Setting
• 1st year students at Universidade de São Paulo
• ACH0011 Natural Science course (15
  weeks-2h/week)
• Total set of Cmaps n55
• Total set of propositions n825

12
Data collection

• Experimental conditions
• Half-structured concept map (HSCmap)
• How-type focal question
• How does bioethics regulate the relationship
  between science and society?
• Quantified concepts were required
• More technology (root concept) more controversy

13
How to use our taxonomic scheme?
14
Data analysis

• Descriptive statistics univariate approach
• Evaluation of the proposed variables
  (S/D11/D12/D21/D22/D23)
• Exploratory analysis multivariate approach
• Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA)
• Pattern identification through Cmaps natural
  clustering

15
Results and discussion

• Descriptive statistics univariate approach
• Box-plots

16
Results and discussion

• Dynamic thinking stimuli
• A props w/ more technology were not
  considered
• Knock out the quantified root concept effect
  (mainly on ?D22/?D23)
• B How-type focal question effect
• Props w/ more technology more controversy
  were not considered (?S/?D11/?D21
  ?D12/?D22/?D23)

17
HCA X(55,6)

• City-block (Cmaps distance) Wards (clusters
  distance)

18
Clusters description
19
Illustrative Cmaps (Cluster IV ?S)
20
Illustrative Cmaps (Cluster I ?D11/?D12)
21
Illustrative Cmaps (Cluster II ?D22/?D23)
22
Conclusions

• Propositions are critical to understand Cmaps
• There is latent information to be unveil
• Our taxonomic scheme
• Deep evaluation of props (S/D11/D12/D21/D22/D23)
• More objetive (4-question procedure for
  classification)
• Students under the same experimental conditions
• Cmaps w/ different kinds of props
• Descriptive props (Cluster IV, ?S)
• Non-causative props (Cluster I, ?D11/?D12)
• Causative props (Cluster II, ?D22/?D23)
• Soon
• This work will be submitted to J. Res. Sci.
  Teach.

23
CMC 2014 in Brazil
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)