@article{BaselHarmsPrechtl2013, author = {Basel, Nicolai and Harms, Ute and Prechtl, Helmut}, title = {Analysis of students' arguments on evolutionary theory}, series = {Journal of biological education}, volume = {47}, journal = {Journal of biological education}, number = {4}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0021-9266}, doi = {10.1080/00219266.2013.799078}, pages = {192 -- 199}, year = {2013}, abstract = {A qualitative exploratory study was conducted to reveal students' argumentation skills in the context of the topic of evolution. Transcripts from problem-centred interviews on secondary students' beliefs about evolutionary processes of adaptation were analysed using a content analysis approach. For this purpose two categorical systems were deductively developed: one addressing the complexity of students' arguments, the other focusing on students' use of argumentation schemes. Subsequently, the categorical systems were inductively elaborated upon the basis of the analysed material showing a satisfactory inter-rater reliability. Regarding the arguments' complexity, students produced mainly single claims or claims with a single justification consisting of either data or warrants. With regard to argumentation schemes students drew their arguments mainly using causal schemes, analogies, or illustrative examples. Results are discussed in light of possible implications for teaching evolutionary theory using classroom argumentation.}, language = {en} } @article{EnzingmuellerPrechtl2021, author = {Enzingm{\"u}ller, Carolin and Prechtl, Helmut}, title = {Constructing graphs in biology class}, series = {International journal of science and mathematics education}, volume = {19}, journal = {International journal of science and mathematics education}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {1571-0068}, doi = {10.1007/s10763-019-09975-2}, pages = {1 -- 19}, year = {2021}, abstract = {There has been a growing awareness that graphing is an essential part of the science curriculum. While much research has focused on student conceptions and abilities regarding graphical representations, only few studies have investigated what teachers think about them and how they use graphs in science class. The purpose of this study is to explore educational beliefs, motivation, and teaching practices of German secondary biology teachers regarding graph construction. Via questionnaire surveys, 71 teachers from different regions in Germany rated their beliefs and motivation as well as the frequency of different graph construction activities in biology class. The teachers surveyed in this study were quite motivated in their teaching of graph construction. Furthermore, they tended to believe that graph construction should be practiced explicitly in biology class and that students should learn clear strategies for constructing graphs. We found that teaching subjects and own research experience make a difference in teachers' beliefs and motivation regarding graph construction in biology class. The self-report on classroom practices revealed that participants may provide limited opportunities for students to experience graphing as a social and iterative practice. Implications are drawn for teacher education and professional development as well as for further research in teacher education contexts.}, language = {en} } @article{BaselHarmsPrechtletal.2014, author = {Basel, Nicolai and Harms, Ute and Prechtl, Helmut and Weiss, Thomas and Rothgangel, Martin}, title = {Students' arguments on the science and religion issue: the example of evolutionary theory and Genesis}, series = {Journal of biological education}, volume = {48}, journal = {Journal of biological education}, number = {4}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0021-9266}, doi = {10.1080/00219266.2013.849286}, pages = {179 -- 187}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Treating creationism as a controversial topic within the science and religion issue in the science classroom has been widely discussed in the recent literature. Some researchers have proposed that this topic is best addressed by focusing on sociocognitive conflict. To prepare new learning opportunities for this approach, it is necessary to know the concrete arguments that students use in their discussions on this issue. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a systematic description of these arguments. For this purpose, upper secondary students (N=43) argued for either the acceptance of evolutionary theory or faith in Genesis in a written speech. The study was conducted during their regular biology and religious education classes. Generated arguments were analysed by qualitative content analysis. Three dimensions of the arguments were described: the content (science or religion), the valuation of the argument (positive or negative), and whether the argument consisted of a descriptive or normative argumentation. The results indicate that students found it easier to generate arguments about the scientific side of the issue; however, these arguments were negatively constructed. The results are discussed with regard to implications for educational approaches for teaching controversial issues at the high-school level.}, language = {en} } @article{KocJanuchtaHoefflerThomaetal.2017, author = {Koc-Januchta, Marta and H{\"o}ffler, Tim and Thoma, Gun-Brit and Prechtl, Helmut and Leutner, Detlev}, title = {Visualizers versus verbalizers}, series = {Computers in human behavior}, volume = {68}, journal = {Computers in human behavior}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0747-5632}, doi = {10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.028}, pages = {170 -- 179}, year = {2017}, abstract = {This study was conducted in order to examine the differences between visualizers and verbalizers in the way they gaze at pictures and texts while learning. Using a collection of questionnaires, college students were classified according to their visual or verbal cognitive style and were asked to learn about two different, in terms of subject and type of knowledge, topics by means of text-picture combinations. Eye-tracking was used to investigate their gaze behavior. The results show that visualizers spent significantly more time inspecting pictures than verbalizers, while verbalizers spent more time inspecting texts. Results also suggest that both visualizers' and verbalizers' way of learning is active but mostly within areas providing the source of information in line with their cognitive style (pictures or text). Verbalizers tended to enter non-informative, irrelevant areas of pictures sooner than visualizers. The comparison of learning outcomes showed that the group of visualizers achieved better results than the group of verbalizers on a comprehension test.}, language = {en} }