x 3.. .M

In:
..,

.
‘ ‘1' D I In.
1n» LhWVh... a»

.. . ., .z
n aw? hm. «wﬁwxﬁn

a 1.31..»

a:
n.

anv

haw:
A. a A

3.3 ﬂaw... .. _.

3.1..

.

Ln.
.. . a .-

3. 1.....4hmm ‘
a 5...»

hrs

«istc‘ar:
I957:

9

‘ .r .Eﬁﬁmz
gﬁrﬁ t

Y .5;
v

‘ . J I;
m .nmaathpk
v :- IXOoIAu. dun
nﬁwdtrﬁo 133"

.

an.
.. 7.
ﬁn

9.:

3.3::
.: 2.1,qu .

c
I. I)
\fsm...

517...:

. ‘11.! n...

. «a. e. :11:

. 1‘. v1.41
.1215 I

 

 

g

v

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

STIMULATING SCIENCE WONDERMENT AND
DEVELOPING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE THROUGH
MULTI-DAY FIELD TRIPS AND POST-FIELD TRIP
FOLLOW UP

presented by

 

KELLI JO BERRYHILL

‘.

has been accepted towards fuiﬁllment
cf the requirements for the

MS. degree in HORTICULTURE

ﬂaw we

Major Profess'or’s Signature
6 —- Zl - 05

Date

.LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Oppommlly Mullen

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/CIRCIDateDue.indd-p.1

 

STIMULATING SCIENCE WONDERMENT AND DEVELOPING SCIENTIFIC
KNOWLEDGE THROUGH MULTI-DAY FIELD TRIPS AND POST-FIELD
TRIP FOLLOW UP
By

Kelli Jo Ben'yhill

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Horticulture

2005

ABSTRACT
STIMULATING SCIENCE WONDERMENT AND DEVELOPING SCIENTIFIC
KNOWLEDGE THROUGH MULTI-DAY FIELD TRIPS AND POST-FIELD TRIP
FOLLOW UP
By

Kelli Jo Berryhill

Seeds of Science is a program offered at Michigan State University’s 4-H
Children’s Garden in which classes participate in multi-day ﬁeld trips. The 4-H
Children’s garden offers students many opportunities for exploration and discovery.
Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips encourage student wonderment and science learning, and are
closely tied to the curricular needs of schools. Through hands-on activities and authentic
experimentation students ask questions based on their observations and ultimately gain
knowledge of plant science.

Students expressed their wonderment through questioning, during and aﬁer ﬁeld
trips. Students demonstrated a gain and re-structuring of knowledge about science
process, plant and ﬂower parts, and plant problems. Analysis of data indicates that
students’ knowledge increased and their knowledge structures more closely resembled
those of experts after Seeds of Science. Post-ﬁeld trip activities provided continued
opportunities to wonder and reinforced content learned at the 4-H Children’ s Garden.
Post-ﬁeld trip activities differed between schools, but included data collection, a lab

report, use of the on-line Wonder Wall, and inquiry-based, student designed experiments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Norm Lownds for his interest and passion in science education,
his willingness to offer guidance, and his ability to make children wonder. I am grateﬁil

for this entire experience.

To my committee, Dr. Ken Poff and Dr. Christina Schwarz, thank you for your sound

advice and direction.

Thank you to my fabulous family and friends who always manage to make me laugh and

never allow me to forget that life is good.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ ix
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
The Study ...................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 1
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Wonder and Curiosity ........................................................................ 4
Science Inquiry .............................................................................. 7
Questions .................................................................................... 12
Field Trips and Informal Learning Centers ............................................. 17
Field Trip Planning ............................................................... 21
Concept Mapping ........................................................................... 22
Interviewing ................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Introduction .................................................................................. 30
Field Trip Curriculum
Wonder Wall ...................................................................... 31
Science Process ................................................................... 32
Authentic Experiments ........................................................... 32
Planth ........................................................................... 33
Plant Problems ..................................................................... 35
Post-Field Trip Curriculum
Lettuce Growth and Evaluation Experiment .................................. 36
Student-Designed Experiments ................................................. 36
On-line Wonder Wall ............................................................ 38
Post-Field Trip Follow Up ..................... . ................................. 38
Content Knowledge Assessment
Concept Maps ..................................................................... 39
Concept Map Scoring ............................................................ 40
Science Process ........................................................... 41
Plant and Flower Parts ................................................... 42
Plant Problems ............................................................ 42
Case Studies ........................................................................ 43
Student Lab Reports ............................................................... 43
Interviews ........................................................................... 44

iv

Wonderment Assessment
Questions ........................................................................... 45
On-line Wonder Wall ............................................................. 45

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS: WHAT IMPACT DO SEEDS OF SCIENCE FIELD TRIPS HAVE ON

STUDENTS’ LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE?

Concept Maps .............................................................................. 47
Science Process .................................................................... 47
Plant and Flower Parts ............................................................ 48
Plant Problems ..................................................................... 50
Science Process Concept Map Case Studies ........................................... 53
Plant and Flower Parts Concept Map Case Studies ................................... 57
Answers to Wonder Wall Questions .................................................... 62
Interviews ................................................................................... 64
DISCUSSION
Introduction ................................................................................. 74
Student Learning
Science Process ................................................................... 75
Plant and Flower Parts ........................................................... 76
Plant Problems .................................................................... 76
Knowledge Structure
Science Process ................................................................... 77
Plant and Flower Parts ........................................................... 78
Plant Problems .................................................................... 80
Answers to Wonder Wall Questions .................................................... 81
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS: HOW DO SEEDS OF SCIENCE FIELD TRIPS INFLUENCE THE
QUESTIONS STUDENTS ASK?
Wonder Wall ................................................................................ 84
Interviews .................................................................................... 86
DISCUSSION
Introduction ................................................................................. 88
Student Generated Questions ............................................................. 90
CHAPTER 5

RESULTS: HOW DO POST-FIELD TRIP ACTIVITIES INFLUENCE
STUDENTS’ WONDERMENT AND LEARNING?

Wonderment

On-line Wonder Wall Questions ................................................ 96

Student Designed Experimental Questions .................................... 96
Learning

On-line Wonder Wall ............................................................ 100
Lab Report ................................................................................. 102

DISCUSSION

Introduction ................................................................................ 106
Wonder
On-line Wonder Wall ............................................................ 106
Student Designed Experiments ................................................ 107
Learning
On-line Wonder Wall ............................................................ 1 10
Lab Report ........................................................................ 112
CONCLUSION
Hypotheses ................................................................................. 114
Seeds of Science Stimulates Wonder ............................................ - ....... 1 16
Seeds of Science Stimulates Learning ................................................. 116
Wonder Stimulate Learning ............................................................. 117
Future Studies ............................................................................. 118
APPENDIX A: Fast Plants Wondercast ....................................................... 120
APPENDIX B: Fast Plants Fertilizer Experiment ............................................ 121
APPENDIX C: Lettuce Growth and Evaluation Experiment -
Introduction and Experimental Design ..................................... 122
APPENDIX D: Lettuce Growth and Evaluation Experiment —
Data Collection ................................................................ 123
APPENDIX E: Lettuce Growth and Evaluation Experiment —
Final Data Collection ......................................................... 124
APPENDIX F: Lettuce Growth and Evaluation Report ..................................... 126
APPENDIX G: Student Designed Experiments .............................................. 136
APPENDIX H: Flower Dissection .............................................................. 137
APPENDIX 1: Plant Problems ................................................................... 138
APPENDIX J: Concept Maps ................................................................... 139
APPENDIX K: Concept Map Expert Rubrics ................................................ 142
APPENDIX L: Letter to Parents ................................................................ 144
APPENDIX M: Letter to Teachers .............................................................. 150
APPENDIX N: UCRIHS Approval ............................................................ 153
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................ 154

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Logistics of Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips to the 4-H Children’s Garden ........... 30
Table 2. Post-ﬁeld trip follow up leader and activities ......................................... 39
Table 3. Pre and post-visit science process concept map scores .............................. 48
Table 4. Pre- and post-visit science process speciﬁc connections scores .................... 48
Table 5. Pre- and post-visit plant and ﬂower parts concept map scores ..................... 49
Table 6. Pre- and post-visit plant and ﬂower parts speciﬁc connections scores ............ 49
Table 7. Association of stamen with male and pistil with female ﬂower parts. .. ...........50
Table 8. Pre- and Post-visit science process scores for 4 individual students ............... 54

Table 9. Pre- and post-visit plant and ﬂower parts scores for 5 individual students ....... 57
Table 10. Selected examples of student questions and their answers ........................ 62
Table 11. Science process concept map connections and student explanations ............ 65

Table 12. Female ﬂower parts concept map connections and student explanations ....... 66

Table 13. Male ﬂower parts concept map connections and student explanations .......... 67
Table 14. Seed and fruit concept map connections and student explanations ............... 68
Table 15. Photosynthesis concept map connections and student explanations. .. ...........69
Table 16. Plant problems concept map connections and student explanations ............. 71
Table 17. Wonder Wall basic information and wonderment questions ..................... 84
Table 18. Types of Wonder Wall questions asked (%) on each Seeds of Science ﬁeld
trips ....................................................................................... 85
Table 19. Types of Wonder Wall wonderment questions ...................................... 85
Table 20. Types of wonderment questions ﬁ'om student interviews ......................... 86
Table 21. Questions students asked during post-visit interviews ............................. 86

vii

Table 21. Questions students asked during post-visit interviews ............................. 86

Table 22. On-line Wonder Wall basic information and wonderment questions ............ 96
Table 23. Expert generated questions and student responses from the on-line Wonder
Wall chatroom .......................................................................... 100
Table 24. Student generated questions and ongoing conversation with an expert on the
on-line Wonder Wall ................................................................... 101
Table 25. Lettuce experiment “best” cultivar selection ....................................... 103

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Total number of plant problems concepts on pre- and post-visit maps ........... 51
Figure 2. Change in plant problems concepts between pre- and post-visit .................. 52
Figure 3. Pre- and Post-visit science process case studies ..................................... 55
Figure 4. Pre- and Post-visit plant and ﬂower parts case studies .............................. 59

Figure 5. Basic information and wonderment questions generated ﬁ'om Wonder Walls,
the on-line Wonder Wall, and student designed experiments ..................... 98

Figure 6. Types of wonderment questions asked on Wonder Walls, the on-line Wonder
Wall, and student designed experiments .............................................. 99

ix

INTRODUCTION

The 4-H Children’s Garden, located on the campus of Michigan State University,
is one of ﬁve parts of the Horticultural Demonstration Gardens. The garden, about two-
thirds of an acre in size, is divided into over 60 different theme gardens, including the
pizza and perfume gardens. The mission of the 4-H Children’s Garden is “To promote an
understanding of plants and the role they play in our environment and daily lives; To
nurture the sense of wonder in a child’s imagination and curiosity; To provide a place for
the enrichment and delight for all children.” It is a place where plants, children and
imaginations grow (4hgarderrmsu.edu).

In addition to the outdoor 4-H Children’s Garden, there is also an indoor 4-H
Children’s Garden. Within the indoor children’s garden there are theme gardens
including the Michigan garden, which has important horticultural crops of Michigan
growing in it. Michigan’s lower and upper peninsulas are connected by a miniature,
suspension bridge like the Mackinac Bridge. The great lakes are represented as ponds
and ﬁsh swim about, which delight and fascinate children. The indoor 4-H Children’s
Garden gives children a year round opportunity to explore, discover, and wonder.

Various educational programs are offered throughout the year at the 4-H
Children’s Gardens, one of which is Seeds of Science. Local school groups have been
involved with this program, visiting the gardens on multiple ﬁeld trips, spaced about one
week apart. Seeds of Science abides by the mission of the children’s garden, promoting

wonderment and emphasizing plant science education. Teachers work closely with the

individuals involved in organizing and running the ﬁeld trips, and play a vital role in

shaping the ﬁeld trip curriculum.

THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to assess how Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips and

subsequent post-visit activities inﬂuence students learning, knowledge structure, and

wonderment. Three research questions were explored:

l.

2.

3.

What impact do Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips have on students’ learning and
knowledge structure?
How do Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips inﬂuence the questions students ask?

How do post-ﬁeld trip activities inﬂuence students’ wonderment and learning?

Hypotheses include the following:

H1: Students’ post-visit knowledge of plant science will be greater than students’
pre-visit plant science knowledge. This is expected since the Seeds of Science
curriculum offers students many opportunities to experience plant science ﬁrst
hand.

H2: Students post-visit concept maps will be more similar to the expert map, in
terms of concept organization and number of valid links, compared to students’
pre-visit maps. As students gain knowledge, they add the new information to
their prior knowledge and organize the concepts in a way that allows for easy
recall of information. Organization of concepts is an indication of expertise.

H3: Students will express basic information questions and wonderment questions

relatively equally during the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips. This is based off of

research done on immersion ﬁeld trips at the 4-H Children’s Garden where
second and third grade students asked wonderment and basic information
questions equally (Driscoll, 2004).

H4: Students engaged in post-ﬁeld trip activities will have a greater change in
science process knowledge compared to those students who did no follow up.
Post-ﬁeld trip activities focused on completing a scientiﬁc investigation, which
provided students with the opportunity to experience the science process in its
entirety.

H5: Students Will express more wonderment questions in post-visit activities than
during the course of the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips. It is expected that the
majority of basic information questions will be raised and addressed during the
ﬁeld trips; therefore, it is likely that post-ﬁeld trip activities will elicit more

wonderment questions.

CHAPTER 1

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

WONDER AND CURIOSITY

Martin, an 8 year old student eloquently deﬁned science: “Science is all the
wonder things - all the things you wonder about. A scientist studies everything almost,
like all the wonder things. Like you wonder, ‘Is there an end to space?’ It’s probably a
scientist who discovered there’s no end to space” (McNay, 1985). Wonder and curiosity
are the precursors to student questioning, which educators must nurture. In fact,
Bjorkvold (1992) claimed that wonder was responsible for forming the very basis of
children’s culture. Children love asking questions, inquiring into topics that normally are
taken for granted, such as “How do birds ﬂy? What are freckles? How many stars are
there?” (McNay, 1985). Wondering is an innate behavior that human beings experience
upon birth (Britton, 1970). Educators need to embrace children’ s natural inquisitive
nature and use it to guide student learning. Children, if allowed and encouraged, “remain
active and curious philos0phers and scientists throughout their lives” (Latham, 1996).
Even centuries ago Plato clearly highlighted the importance of wonder: “Look for the
genesis of knowledge in the child’s emerging sense of wonder” (cited in Nikola-Lisa,
1988). It is through wonder and curiosity that children come to know the world at large
(Cobb, 1977).

Wonder and curiosity go hand in hand. Curiosity is an energizing factor, a
motive, that arouses exploratory behavior (Jenkins, 1969). It is the root of scientiﬁc

questioning. To confront and question the novel and unfamiliar is to be curious. It is the

force behind much of what human beings do within daily life, especially in science, and
should be encouraged within education (Opdal, 2001). Opdal (2001) views curiosity as a
conﬁdent, focused interest with the goal of ﬁnding something out. Wonder on the other
hand, is a state of mind where one is struck by peculiarity or strangeness, which may lead
to an experience of awe (Opdal, 2001). Wonder and curiosity have shaped science by
providing the motive to question the unknown. The scientiﬁc community views
scientiﬁc progress as the result of discipline and curiosity: “The curiosity of creative
minds, asking continuously How? and Why?, and the discipline to realize that science is
part of the world, that it is shaping it, for better and for worse” (Groen, et al., 1990).

Many classrooms are unfortunately, curriculum driven and create a fact-based
rather than curiosity-based learning environment. Children easily fall into the “correct
way?’ - the “getting it right” syndrome. Rarely, are students given the opportunity. to
wade around in the unknown (Latham, 1996). Concept development is a primary
objective of elementary school science and curiosity has been identiﬁed as a motivational
force in children to form concepts (Jenkins, 1969). In a society that is moving toward
increasing scientiﬁc literacy, providing opportunities for wonder and curiosity are crucial.
Stern (1971) identiﬁed intellectual curiosity as “the very source of science” and as a
driving force in child development (Stem, 1973). Curiosity has also been noted as being
“one of the most important spurs to educational attainment” (Day, 1982). Wonder has its
place too: “To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand” (Y olen, 1981). It is via
wonder and curiosity that children begin to make sense of concepts.

National and State standards require teachers to cover speciﬁc curricula, which

often leaves little time for inquiry-based or discovery learning. The initial wonder that

children experience in a science activity is quite important for leaning: “while wonder is
passive, the new light in which it reveals the world can be a potent stimulus for learning.
Wonder, in fact, gives things their meaning and reveals their signiﬁcance” (Hove, 1996).
There are close connections between stimulating curiosity and learning: “Learning is
largely due to the curiosity held by the children” (Maw and Maw, 1961). Furthermore,
Hadzigeouruiou (1999) pointed out that curiosity stimulates conceptual development and
heightened curiosity facilitated the retention of facts (Berlyne, 1954). Thus, a
relationship between curiosity and learning has been empirically documented. Curiosity
has also been known to lead to exploratory behavior causing individuals to seek
information about the environment. Additionally there is evidence that curiosity is a
factor that motivates individuals toward the acquisition of knowledge (Jenkins, 1969).
McNay (1985) points out that “we teach children something immensely valuable when
we set them the example of a curious person seeking to understan .”

The role of the educator is to provide inquiry opportunities for students. To allow
them time to question, formulate, and reﬁne ideas about scientiﬁc phenomena they have
observed. As Socrates stated, educators need to “move children in the direction of the
answers by fostering exploration” (cited in Hamilton, 1961), yet educators fail to provide
opportunities for wondering. Children’s questions are oﬁen times simplistically
answered by adults, leaving them with no desire to make ﬁrrther inquiries so the
wondering ceases. Unfortunately “for many children wondering about the world stops
when they start school,” which is largely the result of the content driven classroom
(Latham, 1996). The educational system is known for quelling curiosity in the classroom

(Torrance, 1965), yet pedagogical literature strongly supports and advocates teachers to

stimulate curiosity in the classroom (McNay, 1985). Educators need to keep young
children’ s wondering and discovering alive through exploration and reﬂection (Latham,
1996).

Wonder and curiosity must be cultivated and encouraged in order for students to
expand their existing scientiﬁc theories. Gardner (1993) suggested that children as young
as four years old are capable of formulating theories and are also very eager to share their
ideas. Encouraging children to wonder and be curious can be done in a number of ways:
valuing children’s ideas, creating a wonder ﬁlled environment, exposing children to new
experiences, and giving time for exploration, discovery, and reﬂection (Latham, 1996).
Children can make connections with the natural world if given the chance. Such a richly
stimulating environment allows for play, wonder, ecstasy, and time to dream (Nikola-
Lisa, 1988). Students build scientiﬁc understanding through observations and making
sense of the world around them (Bransford, et al., 2000). Before anyone can establish a
long-term “relationship” with a new idea or concept, the subject must ﬁrst “come alive
and become stimulated” (Whitehead, 1929). Wonder, curiosity, and mystery all play a
vital role in What Whitehead (1929) deemed ‘the stage of romance.’ Children in
particular should begin their engagement “in a ‘romantic’ way, in a way that makes them

feel the excitement inherent in the subject” (Hadzigeorgiou, 2001).

SCIENCE INQUIRY
Schwab (1962) interpreted inquiry as referring to both pedagogy and content:

teaching and learning of science as inquiry, or the act of inquiring; and instruction in

which the production of scientiﬁc knowledge is viewed as the process of inquiry. Much

more recently the National Resource Council (NRC, 2000) deﬁned scientiﬁc inquiry as:
The diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose
explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers
to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding

of scientiﬁc ideas, as well as understanding of how scientists study the natural
world.

Inquiry gives students the opportunity to participate in active investigations, instead of
rote memorization of facts. In short, inquiry allows students to behave as “real” scientists
by “Observing, describing, questioning, and searching for answers” (Doris, 1991). As
Cobb (1977) advises, children learn “by becoming,” let children become scientists by
doing as scientists do. There is strong empirical evidence that “supports the promotion of
inquiry in science teaching” (Tamir, 1983). In fact, writers of the National Science
Education Standards include “science as inquiry” as part of the content standards (NRC,
1996). These standards mandate a prominent place for inquiry learning in science
curricula. Sustained, integrated, inquiry-based lessons need to be commonplace in
science education, because the beneﬁts of “engaging students in investigations to answer
authentic questions are substantial and include more thoughtful and robust science
learning” (Krajcik, et al., 1998).

Inquiry is not a new concept in science education, having been around since the
19503. For many years, science educators in the United States have recommended
inquiry be placed at the core of science instruction (DeBoer, 1991; DeBoer & Bybee,
1995; Lawson, 1995; NRC, 1996; Schwab, 1962; and Tamir, 1983). Despite the
recommendation, inquiry is rarely implemented: “Inquiry is shallowly taught if at all at
any educational level from kindergarten through college, due in part to the dominance of

textbooks as the true curriculum, most of which are not inquiry oriented” (Y ager, 2000,

1997). The reasons for the lack of inquiry based curricula in science education are
numerous. Inquiry experiments take much more time than “cookbook” based
experiments, which merely force students to follow a series of steps to get the correct,
predetermined answers (Tamir, 1983). Teachers fear that they will not be able to meet
state mandates if inquiry is routinely incorporated into the classroom (W elch, et al.,
1981). Teachers who support inquiry know “that they could ‘cover’ the curriculum much
more rapidly through lecturing and telling the student the ‘correct’ scientiﬁc ideas, but
they realize that genuine learning is an active process, and they prefer to guide the
students in actively ‘uncovering’ the curriculum by setting up appropriate learning
situations” (DuVall, 2001a). However, many teachers did not grow up with inquiry-
based curricula and are therefore inexperienced and ill-prepared for conducting such
investigations in the classroom (Welch, et al., 1981). Some teachers mistakenly become
dispensers of knowledge and are viewed as all-knowing, information sources spewing
information in a traditional, lecture based manner. Students remain passive and are
“rarely involved in direct experiences with scientiﬁc phenomena” (Wise, 1996). An
inductive, discovery method approach to science allows students to discover concepts,
where teachers merely act as guides or facilitators of learning, leading students toward
solving their own problems and determining individual answers (DeBoer, 1991).

True inquiry lessons require that students engage in hands-on activities. The
NRC calls for hands-on and minds-on activities in science education (1996) helping
students learn ﬁrst-hand versus vicariously. Inquiry instructional strategies include many
different components such as hands-on activities, questioning, and discovery learning,

“all of which [show] signiﬁcant and substantial effects on achievement” (Wise and Okey,

1983). In addition to helping children develop science concepts, hands-on activities also
promote a feeling of excitement. Hadzigeougiou (2001) claims that “hands on activities
that incite wonder can and should be incorporated into many, if not all, science
activities.” Finding activities that promote wonder is not too challenging since children
are authentically motivated to do science. They simply want to “ﬁnd out!” They are '
highly intrigued by the unknown, so “the world around them is a mystery to be unraveled
and solv ” (Pearce, 1999). If kids are allotted the time to explore they naturally develop
ideas, ask questions, and make personal discoveries.

Implementing inquiry closely ties with the steps of the scientiﬁc method. Science
needs to be taught as “process or method rather than as content” (Rutherford, 1964).
Students grasp these steps or components of scientiﬁc investigations by: making
observations; asking their own questions; formulating hypotheses; obtaining background
information through research; gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data; proposing
answers; and reporting ﬁndings (Byers and Fitzgerald, 2002). These steps give students
ﬁrst-hand experiences being scientists and performing scientiﬁc investigations. Such
experiences teach more than just content, they also educate children about very important
“attitudinal ‘meta lessons’ such as curiosity, perseverance, experiencing failure, and
dealing with doubts” (T amir, 1983). It is student attitudes towards science that are much
more important than a strong conceptual, factual base since their attitudes are the
motivators for engagement (Stern, 1971).

Children engaged in scientiﬁc inquiry take ownership of their investigations and
are therefore highly invested in their questions, experiments, data and results. It is very

rewarding asking a question meaningful to the individual and then, through hands-on

10

experiments answering the question of interest: “True inquiry requires a strong sense of
personal ownership and investment in the curriculum. If the investigation originated with
someone else’s questions, was carried outwith someone else’s set of instructions and
suggested materials, and came to someone else’s predetermined conclusions, then where
is inquiry” (DuVall, 2001b). When students are actively involved in “real science,”
exploring the unknown and making discoveries about the natural world, rarely do they
discover knowledge new to humankind. However, research shows that “students
engaged in inquiry discover knowledge new to themselves” (Byers and Fitzgerald, 2002).
This new knowledge excites the discoverer, the “owner” of the ﬁnding, and causes
him/her to “tell other kids about what [he/she] had done” (Comeaux and Huber, 2001).
Students begin to experience “intellectual joy and a sense of personal accomplishment
that begins with genuine curiosity and leads to deeper, more lasting understanding”
(DuVall, 2001b). Inquiry into authentic questions produced from student experiences is
at the heart of science teaching (NRC, 1996).

In order for students to ask thought-provoking, quality questions, educators must
allow time for “both wandering (digging in and having experiences) and wondering
(trying to ﬁgure out what’s happening and why)” (Merriam, 1991). Nurturing children’s
sense of wonder helps them move from “concrete observations and experiences to rich,
meaningful questions” (DuVall, 2001b). Instead of students simply sitting back,
attempting to absorb knowledge they are actively participating in their own learning,
which has many positive impacts. Inquiry empowers and excites students and has been
known to have a positive inﬂuence on students’ science attitudes: “Inquiry-based science

can produce scientiﬁc literacy, knowledge of science procedures, vocabulary, conceptual

ll

understanding, and positive attitudes toward science” (Haury, 1993). Furthermore,
Shymansky, et al., (1982) reported that inquiry-based curricula had a positive impact on
student performance including general achievement, attitudes toward science, processing
skills, problem solving, creativity, and even mathematics and reading skills. Inquiry
naturally promotes habits of mind associated with science, such as openness, skepticism,
curiosity, and honesty (Larzarowtiz and Tamir, 1994).

Teaching science as inquiry is necessary to be scientiﬁcally literate: “To be truly
scientiﬁcally literate in the 21” century, one must possess more than a mere collection of
facts. Scientiﬁc literacy involves understanding, analyzing and explaining those facts. It
involves active investigation, not just acquiring and memorizing this body of facts”
(DuVall, 2001b). Inquiry involves active investigation. In fact, children involved with
inquiry lessons become scientists by doing as scientists do: “observing, describing,
questioning, and searching for answers” (Doris, 1991). The National Science Education
Standards views scientiﬁc literacy as “being capable of asking, ﬁnding, or determining
answers to questions derived ﬁom curiosity about everyday experiences” (NRC, 1996).
Science educators strive to produce scientiﬁcally literate children who sustain their
motivation for learning throughout their lives. In doing so, there is a prominent “need to
create inquiry-based classrooms that embrace the tremendous curiosity children initially

bring to school” (DuVall, 2001b).
QUESTIONS

At the very core of science is questioning (Pearce, 1999; Shodell, 1995).

Without questioning there would be no scientiﬁc discovery or opportunity to explore the

12

unknown world. “Authentic questioning, generated from student experiences is the
central strategy for teaching science” (NRC, 1996). Authenticity is more than just
performing investigations into questions that scientists might ask; it includes questions
that are meaningful to students and related to their lives (Blumenfeld, et al., 1998). A
wide consensus exists among researchers that students abilities to ask questions should
become “a central focus of current science education reform” (Zoller, et al., 1997).
Pizzini and Shepardson (1991) identiﬁed a goal for science educators: “To nurture
student questions by actively involving students in learning.” Instructional models must
be identiﬁed that enhance student questioning. Gallagher, et al., (1995) proposed that
science curriculum reconstruction begins by making science in the classroom “look and
feel like science as it is conducted in the real world.” It is a simple matter of putting
nature to the question (Harre, 1981).

In the average classroom, whether it is at the elementary or college level, students
sit passively, asking few questions. Unfortunately the vast majority of questions asked in
a classroom are from teachers, not students, although students, even at very early ages,
are capable of asking questions (Good, et al., 1987). In fact, Cooper, et al., (1981) found
that successful learners in kindergarten and second grade used questions as an aid to
learning. The fact that authentic, student generated questions are a rarity in the classroom
was identiﬁed nearly seventy years ago (Dale, 1937) and this same issue still exists today.
Dillon (1990) pointed out that children everywhere are schooled to become experts,
masters at answering questions, while they merely remain novices at asking them. The
social structure of the classroom may actually discourage student questioning, where

students remain inactive, taking on a participant role and the teacher ﬁrnctions as the

13

active questioner (Dillon, 1982). Dillon (1988) pointed out an interesting paradox:
“Those who ask questions — teachers, texts, tests — are not seeking knowledge; those who
would seek knowledge — students - do not ask questions.” Commeyras (1995) stated that
students are in need of instruction on questioning do to the fact that “their natural
inquisitiveness has been depressed through current schooling practices.” Learning should
be based on what the students are interested in and driven by students’ desire to answer
their own questions (Chin and Li-Gek, 2004).

Question asking is known to have many positive effects on student learning,
comprehension, and knowledge (Costa, et al., 2000; Gallagher, et al., 1995; LaFrance,
1992). True learning is characterized not so much by the answering of questions as by
the asking of them (UNESCO, 1980). Shodell (1995) expressed that “knowing the
answer to a question may or may not indicate an understanding of the subject matter.
However, being able to formulate a good question is always contingent upon such
understanding.” Generation of questions was identiﬁed as one of the key components in
the cognitive processes that contribute to certain aspects of learning (Olson, et al., 1985).
Marbach-Ad and Sokolove (2000) reported that students who ask questions retain
material longer than those who do not. Additionally, these students are more likely to
develop into independent learners. Question asking ability has also been linked with
increased problem solving performance (Dori and Herscovitz, 1999). Hadzigeorgiou
(1999) noted that teachers can identify conceptual difﬁculties by just listening to
students’ questions. Questions provide insight into what students know and understand
and can be used to identify misconceptions (Harper, et al., 2003). As students pose

questions they are exposing their thoughts, providing teachers with opportunities to

14

identify children’s conceptual understanding and conceptual change over time
(Woodward, 1992; Watts, et al., 1997). The questions that students put forth, “activate
their prior knowledge, focus their learning efforts and facilitate the understanding of new
concepts, help them elaborate on their knowledge, and arouse their epistemic curiosity”
(Schmidt, 1993).

Questions that are spontaneously asked by students do not indicate high quality
thinking, but tend to be of a low cognitive level (White and Gunstone, 1992; Pedrosa de
Jesus and Maskill, 1990). Dillon (1988) supports this argument: “Students rarely use
questioning to seek knowledge, explanations, and understanding.” Graesser and Person
(1994) documented students’ questions as very infrequent and unSOphisticated; they are
normally shallow, short-answer questions addressing content and interpretation of
material. The vast majority are factual, closed questions with a single, unambiguous
answer. Imaginative questions, which require reﬂection and understanding, are
extremely rare (Chin, et al., 2002). Learners’ questions have the capacity to show
curiosity, reveal deep thinking and to focus on complex, detailed issues (Watts, 1997).

To improve students question asking ability they must be given practice:
“Students’ abilities to generate questions are fostered through active engagement. Asking
good questions comes from having experience asking questions” (Krajcik, et al., 1998).
Students questioning becomes more speciﬁc over time, revealing variables and detailed
relations (Roth and Roychoudhury, 1993). Furthermore, the level of questioning is
dependent on prior knowledge. Krajcik, et al., (1998) found that ﬁfth and sixth graders
tended to “generate low-level factual questions rather than questions that could extend

their understanding of a topic and that the level of questions students asked depended on

15

their prior knowledge.” Lack of domain knowledge did not hamper students in raising
questions, rather it aﬂ‘ected the kinds of questions that were asked. Students who
generate low-level factual questions are more apt to ask higher order thinking questions
as they gain more background knowledge. Already possessing a basic understanding of a
topic allows students to ask questions that have potential to extend their conceptual
understanding (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1992). Asking a meaningful question implies
that a student has enough knowledge structure to formulate it and understand the answer
(Miyake and Norman, 1979).

Questions have been categorized in various ways. Watts, et al., (1997) grouped
questions into three categories including consolidation, exploration, and elaboration.
Chin and Li-Gek (2004) categorized questions as follows: validation of common beliefs
and misconceptions, basic information, explanations, and imagined scenarios.
Scardamalia and Bereiter (1992) distinguished two broad categories of questions
including basic information and wonderment. Basic information questions have a
textbook quality to them, are considered uneducated guesses and have two subtypes:
factual and procedural. Factual questions are closed-ended and require recall of
information while procedural questions inquire about how a task is to be carried out.
Wonderment questions reﬂect “curiosity, puzzlement, skepticism, or knowledge-based
speculation.” Wonderment questions include the following subtypes: comprehension,
prediction, anomaly detection, application, and planning or strategy. Comprehension
questions seek an explanation of something not understood while prediction questions
involve Speculation or hypothesis veriﬁcation. Anomaly detection questions show

skepticism or a cognitive conﬂict. Application questions are those in which students

16

wonder what use the new, given information is to them. Questions falling into the
planning or strategy subcategory reveal that students are temporarily stuck and want to
know how to proceed forward. Bloom, et al., (1956) identiﬁed six question categories:
knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Knowledge
questions are the most basic which require memorization and recognition.
Comprehension questions involve interpretation, translating from one medium to the
next. Application questions require problem solving or applying information to produce
some result. Analysis questions subdivide something to show how it is put together,
whereas synthesis questions combine ideas to form a new whole. Lastly, questions in the

evaluation category develop opinions, judgments or decisions.

FIELD TRIPS AND INFORMAL LEARNING CENTERS

Over the past twenty years there has been a considerable increase in the number
of informal learning centers such as museums, interactive science centers, and ﬁeld study
centers (Dierkling and Falk, 2000). In fact, there are reports that over twenty million
elementary and junior high students take ﬁeld trips to informal learning environments
each year (Kubota and Olstad, 1991). Field trips have been used for over seventy years
and are regarded as an effective teaching tool (Prather, 1989). However, rarely do
science teachers use out-of-school learning environments to stimulate and engage their
students (Ramey-Gassert, 1997).

Learning in school tends to be “solitary, based in symbols and the abstract, and
divorced ﬁ'om real-world experiences, with little or no connection with the actual objects

or events represented” (Resnick, 1987). Wellington (1990) points out that science in

17

schools has very little resemblance to that which is experienced in the natural world
where science and technology are everywhere. Science is all around, on playgrounds, in
the kitchen, and in the backyard garden. Collectively, these common spaces can offer a
lifetime of investigations (Wellington, 1990). Students need to experience these common
spaces and the myriad of natural phenomena they house. One way to provide exposure to
natural phenomena is through ﬁeld trips to informal science learning environments
including science centers, museums, and zoos. Rarney-Gassert (1997) argued that these
informal science learning environments should be an important part of science education
redesign, but are often overlooked. These places provide students with captivating
science experiences that can be closely tied into curricular objectives.

Field trips, deﬁned as “a trip arranged by the school and undertaken for
educational purposes, in which students go to places where the materials of instruction
may be observed and studied directly in their ﬁrnctional setting” (Krepel and DuVall,
1981), have many positive effects on students, including cognitive and affective learning
outcomes (Riley and Kahle, 1995). Empirical research suggests that the major
advantages of learning activities in informal education settings lie in the affective domain
(Meredith, et al., 1997). Teachers have observed that ﬁeld trips foster positive attitudes
toward science in their students (Tuckey, 1992). Prather (1989) noted that ﬁeld trips
enhance students’ attitudes toward science as well as their information gain. In a study
by Orion and Hofstein (1994) classes that performed better in the ﬁeld achieved
signiﬁcantly higher scores on a knowledge test and gained more positive attitudes. Field
trips tend to “catalyze, enrich or culminate” instructional units (Delaney, 1967) providing

opportunities to illustrate and reinforce concepts, facts, and skills being taught (Keown,

18

1984). There are immediate outcomes to the ﬁeld trip experience including retention of
knowledge (Knapp, 2000). Gagne and White (1978) noted that those participants
actively involved in a ﬁeld trip demonstrated a better understanding of course material
immediately following the ﬁeld trip and showed signiﬁcantly less loss of knowledge over
a twelve week period. Experiences that children have while participating in a ﬁeld trip
produce memorable events that stay with them long aﬁer the completion of the program
(Knapp, 2000).

Science education is taught in three distinct environments: classroom, laboratory,
and outdoors. It is clear that the outdoor environment is the one most neglected by
teachers, curriculum developers, and researchers (Orion and Hofstein, 1994). There is a
longstanding emphasis on outdoor experiences for young children (Bredekamp and
Copple, 1997) that goes back at least to the 1800s. Louis Agassiz stated: “read nature,
not books” (cited in Cooper, 1945), yet today children spend very little time outdoors,
whether it be at school or home. Most of their time is spent in buildings or vehicles
(Rivkin, 2000). Ifat all possible, students should go out into the ﬁeld and experience
nature ﬁrsthand (Krupa, 2002).

Field trips tend to be process, rather than content, oriented. The process approach
“focuses on the interaction between the student and the environment; students actively
construct information ﬁom the environment, rather than passively absorb information
from teachers” (Orion, 1993). Since cognition is deeply rooted in perception (Gleitman
and Liberman, 1995), and the outdoors is a prime source of perceptions, outdoor learning
experiences should positively impact student learning. When the outdoor environment is

integrated into a school’s curriculum, achievement among students is higher (Lieberman,

19

1999). Peck (unpublished) discovered both cognitive and affective advantages for an
outdoor, as compared to an indoor, environment teaching strategy (Cited in Martin, et al.,
1981). McNamara and Fowler (1975) found that critical thinking is enhanced in the
outdoor environment. If parts of a concept can be related to the students’ immediate
environment, the concept has a much better chance of being understood. Children need
to be given the opportunity to experience the inﬁnite and diverse sensory qualities of the
world (Keown, 1984).

Field trips, as well as informal learning, which is characterized by ﬁ'ee choice and
unstructured and nonsequential experiences (Griﬂin and Symington, 1997), can promote
student wonderment, curiosity, and motivation. Promoting curiosity ultimately effects
student learning: “By nurturing curiosity, the desire to learn can be enhanced” (Ramey-
Gassert, et al., 1994). Pedretti (2002) acknowledges that “science centers can generate a
sense of wonder, interest, enthusiasm, motivation, and eagerness to learn, which are
much neglected in traditional formal science training in school.”

Children tend to lose their curiosity and natural ability to learn via exploration by
the third grade do to the emphasis on rote learning in formal education (Harte, 1989).
Science environments can enhance children’s sense of wonder through direct interactive
experiences with real objects (Falk, et al., 1986). Science centers provide rich learning
environments for students which promote: curiosity resulting in intrinsically motivated
learning, multiple modes of learning, play, and exploration during the learning process”
(Semper, 1990). These experiences are crucial in fostering a child’s natural curiosity,
which in turn lays the foundation for conceptual science learning (Bresler, 1991). In

addition, learners in an informal setting tend to be intrinsically motivated to gain personal

20

meaning ﬁ'om their learning, which has been shown to correlate with memorizing facts

and performing well on tests (Ramey-Gassert, 1997).

Field Dip Flaming
McCurray (1895) divided the ﬁeld trip experience into three general categories:

preparation, trip itself and follow-up activities (cited in Krepel and DuVall, 1981). There
have been numerous studies about ﬁeld trip preparation and pre-visit activities, many of
which show positive effects on student learners (Koran, et al., 1983). It has been shown
that pro-visit instructional materials are valuable for students of all ability levels
(Gennaro, 1981). Learning new content is strongly inﬂuenced by an individual’s past
knowledge (F alk, 2004); therefore, pre-visit preparation is essential to maximize student
learning. Abad (2003) performed background activities two weeks preceding a ﬁeld trip
to establish a foundation for understanding the purpose of the ﬁeld trip. Preparing
students’ background knowledge enabled them to readily absorb information acquired
during the ﬁeld trip. Preparation also resulted in students asking “off-the—cut” technical
questions. Students generated questions, which led to attentive learners during the course
of the ﬁeld trip. Novak (1977) stated: “Carefully designed curricular materials and
advance organizers can be effective instructional strategies for learning new
information.”

‘ Post visit classroom activities are essential for reinforcing experiences, facts,
skills, and concepts learned during the ﬁeld trip (Bitgood, 1991). Rudmann (1994)
suggested that post-visit materials, projects, or activities be administered to help students

reinforce and transfer the learning experience beyond the ﬁeld trip. However, there

21

typically is little or no follow-up (Kubota and Olstad, 1991). Teachers seldom implement
post-visit activities designed to provoke students to recall and extend their learning
experience (Bitgood, 1989). Griffin and Symington (1997) noted that most teachers
indicated that they would in fact do some type of follow-up, yet the results showed that
there was very little done, less than the teachers had planned on. Additionally, very little
research has been conducted on the inﬂuence of post-visit activities on student learning:
“The effects of post-visit activities on learning from informal experiences have not been
described extensively in the literature” (Anderson, et al., 2000). Lucas ( 1999) did
however document a teachers experience with post-activities: “Mr. Jones remarked that
he was surprised and pleased to conclude that the work sheet activities (post ﬁeld trip)
were helping students to consolidate information that otherwise might have remained
ﬁagmented.” The beneﬁts of post-visit activities could be substantial, but it has been

neglected by researchers in the past (Anderson, et al., 2000).

CONCEPT MAPPING

As students learn, they look to their prior knowledge and link new information
with what they already know. Novak (1993) stated that “meaningful learning involves
the assimilation of new concepts and propositions into existing cognitive structures.”
Learners “actively try to incorporate new information into existing knowledge
frameworks and thus make the new information understandable” (Resnick, 1983). New
knowledge therefore reshapes prior knowledge (Freeman and Urbaczewski, 2003).
Rumelhart and Norman (1981) afﬁrmed this by pointing out that the majority of learning

that occurs in life involves the incorporation of new facts into prior knowledge or the

22

modiﬁcation of existing organizational structures. Knowledge is highly interconnected.
Ideas and concepts relate to each other and are stored as schemes, mental storage
mechanisms that are structured as networks of knowledge (Marshall, 1995). According
to Schau, et al., (1997), “knowledge must be organized into mental networks in order to
be accessible from long term memory.” Expertise requires “connected understanding”
between concepts (Schau, et al., 1997). Research shows that understanding in a subject
domain is associated with a rich set of relations among concepts (Mintzes, et al., 1997).
Cognitive and educational psychologists suggest that the “organizational property of
knowledge can best be captured with structural representations” (Bower, 1972).
Concept mapping is a valuable assessment tool used by educators and researchers
to evaluate students’ “connected understanding” of various science concepts (Novak,
1990). Concept maps have been utilized since the 1970s (Rice, et al., 1998) and have
been effectively implemented with young children: “Children as young as primary grades
have been found to be capable of developing and explaining concept maps” (White and
Gunstone, 1992). Maps are constructed on paper or computers and are graphs that show
how ideas or topics are related to each other (Crandell, et al., 1996). The ﬁrndamental
unit of the map is the proposition, which is composed of two nodes, or concepts, linked
together by a labeled line. The lines between nodes are known as relations (Ruiz-Primo,
et al., 2001). The various components form a mental map and show students’ connected
understanding (Ruiz-Primo, et al., 2001). According to Wallace and Mintzes (1990)
concept mapping was the only approach that attended to both student knowledge and the
organization of that knowledge. McClure, et al., (1999) agreed that maps reﬂect the

content and the organization of students’ knowledge.

23

Traditional assessment techniques give students little opportunity to demonstrate
knowledge and mastery beyond the assessment technique. Concept maps, visual
representations of cognitive conceptualization, give viewers of the map an inside look
into that student’s mind (Freeman and Urbaczewski, 2003). Responding to traditional
objective test formats depends on recall of information. The result is that “students’
responses are strongly constrained by the context imposed by the test items. This
limitation on students’ responses may mask important individual differences in the
organization of students’ knowledge” (McClure, et al., 1999). The National Science
Education Standards call for assessment processes that “probe the extent and organization
of student’s knowledge” (NRC, 1996). The Standards also advocate for assessment that
truly reﬂects what students do in fact understand (NRC, 1996). Furthermore, the
Benchmarks for Scientiﬁc Literacy emphasize the importance of “coherence and
connectedness” in science learning (American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1993). According to Markham and Mintzes (1994) scores derived from concept
maps measure a very different dimension than scores revealed in more commonly used
psychometric instruments like multiple choice tests. However, Freeman and
Urbaczewski (2003) showed that students who typically do well with traditional
assessment also score high with mapping: Students who typically do well “produced
concept maps that were larger with more relations.” Additionally, students view concept
mapping as a ﬁrn task, which is a rarity amongst other assessment methods like exams
and quizzes (Freeman and Urbaczewski, 1999).

Reliability and validity are of the utmost importance with any assessment method.

Reliability refers to the consistency of scores assigned to students’ concept maps, while

24

validity is the extent to which students’ cognitive structures, on the basis of their concept
map scores, can be supported logically and empirically. Concurrent validity refers to the
consistent correlations between concept map scores and other measurements of student
achievement (Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson, 1996). Markham and Mintzes (1994) support
the validity of concept maps as a measure of structural knowledge since it captures the
conﬁgure] property of knowledge better than any other presently available technique.
Rice, et al., (1998) found high correlations between concept map scores and unit multiple
choice tests providing strong evidence of the concurrent validity of the map scores.
Further evidence of the concurrent validity of concept maps was presented by Wallace
and Mintzes (1990) and they concluded that concept map tasks were a valuable tool for
educational researchers.

Reliability and validity are largely dependent on the scoring method used to
evaluate maps (McClure, et al., 1999). Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson (1996) argued: “If
concept maps are to be used with conﬁdence as valid measures of student achievement in
support of classroom instruction, it is essential that scoring methods be developed and
validated that result in scores that reﬂect a stronger relationship between concept
mapping and student learning in science, scores that are reliable measures of intended
learning outcomes” (Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson, 1996). Concept maps have various
scoring systems ﬁom counting the number of nodes and linking lines to evaluating the
accuracy of propositions (Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson 1996). Certain scoring systems
assign points for the numbers of concepts, relationships, branchings, hierarchies,
crosslinks, and examples given. McClure, et al., (1999) looked at the reliability and

validity of several scoring techniques including holistic, relational, and structural, each

25

with and without a master map. The holistic scoring method is somewhat arbitrary with
raters assigning a value one to ten based on mapper’s overall understanding of concepts.
The relational method evaluates propositions, each of which is ascribed a point value
according to “correctness” of the proposition (McClure and Bell, 1990). Goldsmith, et
al., (1991) found that scoring based on relationships was the most robust indicator of
understanding. The structural scoring method looks at both correctness of propositions
and hierarchies within the map (Novak and Gowin, 1984). McClure, et al., (1999) found
that the relational scoring method used in conjunction with a master map yielded the most
reliable scores. The master or expert map, is the concept map constructed by a
knowledgeable expert in the ﬁeld, usually a teacher. This expert map is used as a rubric
when scoring student maps. Rye and Rubba (2002) noted that authorities favor methods
that employ an expert/criterion map and emphasize the use of concept relationships in
deriving scores. Student concept maps typically are assessed by comparing them to an
expert’s map in either quantitative or qualitative forms (Freeman and Urbaczewski,
2003).

Concept maps have structural differences. Typically students are asked to
construct-a-map from scratch on a piece of paper (Ruiz-Primo, et al., 2001; Schau, et al.,
1997). The alternate ﬁll-in-the map method is pre-forrned. Students are given a map
where some of the concepts and/or linking words have been omitted. Students ﬁll in the
blank nodes or linking lines (Schau, et al., 1997). There is controversy over which
structural method is best for evaluating student learning. Schau and Mattem (1997)
argued that asking students to draw a map ﬁ'om scratch “imposes too high a cognitive

demand to produce a meaningful representation of their knowledge.” However, the

26

ﬂipside to this argument is that by using the ﬁll-in-the-map technique a structure is being
imposed on the relations between concepts; therefore, “it is difficult to know whether or
not students’ knowledge structures are becoming increasingly similar to experts” (Ruiz-
Primo, et al., 2001). Ruiz-Primo, et al., (2001) found that construct-a-map from scratch

scores most accurately reﬂected the differences across students’ knowledge structure.

INTERVIEWIN G

Interviews are a very common way to gather data. Briggs (1986) estimated that
approximately 90 percent of all social science investigations use interviews in one way or
another. In fact, both qualitative and quantitative researchers rely on the interview for
data collecting. The interview is not just used by social science researchers; it is a
“universal mode of systemic inquiry” (Holstein and Gubrium, 1995). Interviewing is one
of the most powerﬁrl ways to gather information and used to understand fellow human
beings (Fontana and Frey, 2000). According to Bogdan and Biklen (1982) an interview
is a “purposeful conversation, usually between two people... that is directed by one in
order to gain information.” More simply put, an interview is a “conversation with a
purpose” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Interviews are used to ﬁnd out what is on
someone’s mind, which cannot be observed directly (Patton, 1990). According to
Holstein and Gubrium (2002) the “interview conversation is a pipeline for transmitting
knowledge.”

Traditional one-on-one interviews are divided into two broad groups: close-ended
interviews and open-ended interviews. Close-ended interviews consist of an interviewer

asking predetermined questions, while open-ended interviews allow for question

27

development within the interviewing process (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982). An open-
ended interview is much more informal. The conversation makes natural progressions
and is largely shaped by the individual situation and context of the dialog exchange
(Hannabuss, 1996). The purpose of the open-ended interview “is not to put things in
someone’s mind, but to access the perspective of the person being interviewed” (Patton,
1990). Unstructured interviews provide a “greater breadth of data than the other types,
given the qualitative nature” (F ontana and Frey, 2000). On the other hand, close-ended
interviews are ﬁrlly structured with a schedule of questions answered by each respondent
(Hannabuss, 1996). With pre-established questions and a limited set of response
categories, there is little room for variation in responses (F ontana and Frey, 2000). This
type of interview makes organizing and quantifying ﬁndings rather straightforward
(Hannabuss, 1996). Fontana and Frey (2000) agrwd that structured interviews are a way
i of “capturing precise data of a codable nature in order to explain behavior within pre-
established categories.”

In regards to interviewing, some researchers believe that the “data speak for
themselves, that the researcher is neutral, unbiased, and invisible” (F ontana and Frey,
2000). Holstein and Gubrium (2002) take a much different stance: “Respondents are not
so much repositories of knowledge - treasuries of information awaiting excavation, so to
speak — as they are constructors of knowledge in collaboration with interviewers.” In
active interviewing the interviewer is not “invisible,” but rather aids in the dissemination
of knowledge. Regardless of the type of interview, whether it be highly structured,
standardized and quantitatively oriented or a free-ﬂowing informational exchange, they

are all interactional. Meaning construction is unavoidably collaborative (Sack, et al.,

28

1974), which is why all participants in an interview are involved in making meaning.
The interviewer offers ways of conceptualizing issues and making connections that help
elicit responses (Gubrium, 1993). Holstein and Gubrium (2002) are in favor of active
interviewing: “The active view eschews the image of the vessel waiting to be tapped in
favor of the notion that the subject’s interpretive capabilities must be activated,
stimulated and cultivated.” Through the interview process respondents construct, not

merely discover or convey information.

29

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION
Images in this thesis are presented in color.

Seeds of Science is a program offered at Michigan State University’s 4-H
Children’s Garden. Classes visit on multiple days, providing students with many
opportunities to explore and discover in the garden. The Seeds of Science curriculum
oﬁ‘ers students the chance to wonder, ask questions, make keen observations, and
experience authentic, hands-on plant science investigations. Classes are encouraged to
visit for 3 ﬁrll days, spaced about one week apart. The ﬁeld trips are integrated into the
schools’ plant science curriculum and can serve to introduce or reinforce classroom
content. The curriculum is shaped in collaboration with teachers, so speciﬁc nwds can
be met.

Five schools of fourth grade students participated in the Seeds of Science ﬁeld
trips. Schools A and D each visited for 2 ﬁrll days and 1 half day for approximately 10
hours spent at the Children’s Garden (Table 1). School B came out on 4 short ﬁeld trips,
which equated to about 6 hours at the gardens. Schools C and E spent 3 full days at the
garden or about 12 hours.

Table 1. Logistics of Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips to the 4-H Children’s Garden.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School # of Students Season # of Days Hours
A 56 Spring 2004 3 10

B 41 Spring 2004 4 6

C 43 Spring 2004 3 12

D 82 Fall 2004 3 10

E 71 Fall 2004 3 12

 

 

 

 

 

30

 

Post-ﬁeld trip follow up was also a part of the Seeds of Science experience for all
schools except school A. Post-visit activities allowed students time to conclude an
experiment started at the gardens, design a new experiment and continue asking
questions. Post-visit activities, whether teacher or expert led, reinforced concepts
explored at the 4-H Children’s Garden.

All schools involved in Seeds of Science were ﬁom the same school district in
Inng County, therefore utilizing the same science curriculum. Schools A, B, and C
visited the 4-H Children’s Garden in the Spring of 2004, whereas schools D and E visited

in the Fall (Table 1).

FIELD TRIP CURRICULUM
Wonder Wall

During the course of the ﬁeld trips students were encouraged to share their
questions and were given opportunities to write those questions on a Wonder Wall.
Garden experts introduced the Wonder Wall on the ﬁrst ﬁeld trip and it was available to
students in subsequent ﬁeld trips. Experts expressed that they valued students’ questions
and assured them that their questions would be addressed at some point during Seeds of
Science. Questions were organized after the ﬁeld trip and speciﬁc questions were
answered as a whole group activity during the following ﬁeld trip. Wonder Wall
questions were also addressed in smaller groups where more of a discussion took place.
Students did not merely ask questions, but were also invited to try answering their peers’
questions. Students ﬁ'om school B were given questions that had been posted to the

wonder wall on a previous visit and were asked to work in groups to come up with

31

potential answers. These answers were then posted on the Wonder Wall below the

corresponding questions and later shared with the group.

Science Process

To help students get a better idea of the steps involved in the science process,
seven students were selected, each of whom held up a card with a speciﬁc step written on
it. The remaining students had to order their seven classmates to demonstrate steps 1
through 7 of the process. The signiﬁcance of each step was clearly explained to all
students. It was further demonstrated that the shape of the science process was not a
straight line, but rather a spiral. The line of students formed a circle and it was
emphasized that the science process does not stop after drawing conclusions and
answering the research question. New questions must be asked and the process

continues.

Authentic Experiments

Two experiments were set up during the ﬁrst ﬁeld trip to give students hands-on
experiences with the steps of the science process. One experiment focused on how
fertilizer effects the growth of fast plants. Students researched these plants by viewing a
wondercast that was developed at the 4-H Children’s Garden
(4hgarden.msu.edu/wondercastl). The wondercast was a short video comparing the
growth of fast plants in earth soil versus those grown in mars simulated soil. Students
had to answer several questions about the differences in plant growth from these two soils

(Appendix A). Students formed hypotheses for the experiment and predicted how these

32

plants would grow if given fertilizer (Appendix B). Each student sowed a fast plant seed
and added 2, 5, or 7 pellets of fertilizer to the potting media. In order to have a control,
some students did not incorporate any fertilizer pellets into their media. During the
second and third visits to the gardens students gathered plant grth data by recording
plant height for each of the fertilizer treatments. During the ﬁnal data collection, class
data was combined and the question of how fertilizer effects plant grth was answered.
To reinforce the science process steps a second experiment was designed to
compare lettuce cultivars (Appendix C). The experimental objective was to determine
the best lettuce cultivar to grow for school lunches. Alter students were given
background information about lettuce, hypotheses were formed, and the experimental set
up was explained. Six different cultivars were sown, each student sowing one cultivar.
Students were asked what data should be gathered and data tables were created for the
second and third ﬁeld trips that reﬂected students’ data collection suggestions (Appendix
D). Students collaborated in groups, using rulers to take height measurements of all
cultivars. Students were also responsible for sketching the leaves, paying special
attention to the leaf margins. Additionally, they had to indicate the color of each cultivar

and note any other observations like differences between cotyledons and true leaves.

Plant Parts

Instead of spending a short period of time on all plant parts, teachers usually
opted to explore certain parts in greater detail. Therefore, the plant parts that were
covered differed slightly among schools. Garden exploration and observation was

crucial in learning any of the plant parts: roots, stems, leaves, ﬂowers, ﬁuits, and seeds.

33

Sketching, describing, and collecting were common tasks carried out by students. Topics
such as pollination, seed dispersal, and plant variation were introduced. When leaves
were discussed the process of photosynthesis was examined. Some schools were
involved with a stomata activity where the classroom was transformed into a leaf, each
student becoming either a carbon dioxide or oxygen molecule. Four students, two at each
door of the classroom, acted as guard cells letting only oxygen out and carbon dioxide in.

The majority of teachers decided to spend a signiﬁcant amount of time on ﬂower
parts simply due to the readily available resources at the gardens, which are unavailable
at their schools. On the ﬁrst visit, participants were allowed to go out into the children’s
garden, collect a ﬂower, split it open to reveal the reproductive parts and place it into a
ﬂower press. During the following visit, students were introduced to the different ﬂower
parts by watching as a garden expert assembled a ﬂower on a felt board. Students then
placed their pressed ﬂower onto a piece of paper, labeled the various ﬂower parts, and
laminated their work. Through the course of the lesson pollination, seed formation, and
fruit development were discussed. Schools A and B did not do a ﬂower press, but rather
two ﬂower dissections. Students separated petals, stamens, and pistils, which were then
glued to a sheet of paper (Appendix H). Dissecting microscopes were available and
ﬂower parts were examined up close. Some microscope stations were set up ahead of
time with speciﬁc ﬂowers and focusing questions: “How many pistils do you see?”

“Which of these two ﬂowers contains the female parts?”

34

Plant Problems

Insects, diseases, and nutrient deﬁciencies can all cause noticeable symptoms on
plants, which without treatment can result in plant death. Students were shown a couple
of plant problems in the children’s garden and asked what may have caused such
symptoms (yellow leaves, white coating on leaves, holes in plant tissue). After an
explanation of plant problem causes, time was given for independent exploration. Each
student found two plant problems, collected one leaf from each troubled plant, sketched
and described the problem in detail (Appendix I). In the classroom, students used plant
problems software designed for Michigan State University’ s 4-H Children’ 3 Garden
(Lownds and Comm. Tech. Lab, 1999). The highly interactive software gave participants
the opportunity to identify their own plant problems, whether it was powdery mildew,
aphids, or iron chlorosis. Microscopic images allowed students to clearly view the
disease causing organism or plant symptom. Additionally, the classroom was equipped
with several dissecting microscopes, which gave further opportunity to correctly diagnose
the plant problem by comparing the computer images with actual ones. Students then
had to determine how to treat the problem, by selecting one of these options: doing
nothing, biological control, plant removal or spray. Before they chose an action they
could see what the ecological effects on the rest of the garden including humans, ﬁ'ogs,
dragonﬂies, and butterﬂies would be. Ultimately a mode of action was determined and

explained.

35

POST-FIELD TRIP CURRICULUM
Lettuce Growth and Evaluation Experiment

The lettuce experiment, started at the 4-H Children’s Garden, was completed in
participants’ classrooms. In the classroom, students collected one more set of data, which
again included height measurements, leaf observations, and also included a taste test of
all six lettuce cultivars (Appendix E). For both the leaf observation and taste test,
students were to ascribe a value 1 to 5 for each cultivar. A score of one equaled
unacceptable. In the case of the leaf evaluation, leaves were brown, shriveled or close to
dead. A score of ﬁve was for an outstanding leaf: striking with fantastic color and
unusual, appealing shape. A similar scale was used for the taste evaluation. These
numbers were used later in the lettuce report to create bar graphs (Appendix F). The
lettuce report ultimately led students to answer the overarching question, which lettuce
would be the best to grow for school lunches? Three factors weighed into this decision:
1) plant height, 2) overall leaf appearance, and 3) taste. After reviewing all three of these
' factors students selected what they viewed to be the best lettuce and justiﬁed their
selection. After students shared their answers they had to identify a new research

question that would be a follow up to the experiment they had just completed.

Student Designed Experiments

Upon conclusion of the lettuce experiment, students were encouraged to continue
the science process by asking a new research question. The new question had to be
testable and again focused around lettuce, due to its rapid growth. The researcher

emphasized the need to have a testable question by using examples from the wonder wall:

36

“How many plants are there in the world?” versus “What would happen if seeds were
planted really deep?” The ﬁrst question illustrated the difﬁculty one might have in
getting an answer, while the second question suggested how an experiment could easily
be designed to get an answer.

Students were introduced to the experimental set up, which consisted of a self-
watering plant grth system. The system was made of a small Tupperware container as
a water reservoir, a piece of felt as a wick, and a Styrofoam cup with media as a planting
container. Each student was given two growing systems so they could design an
experiment to make comparisons between two treatments. The researcher showed how
the two systems could be used to answer the wonder wall question of how depth of
sowing affects lettuce growth. Students were then asked to think about a question that
interested them and share it with the researcher, who veriﬁed that it was testable and had
only one variable.

A demonstration of the making of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich was used to
illustrate the meaning of a procedure. The researcher made the sandwich step by step
according to what students suggested, which clearly showed the necessity of detailed
procedures. Students then formed hypotheses and procedures according to their
individual questions (Appendix G). Seeds were sown and participants were instructed to
take the individual growing systems home, care for them, and note any differences

between their two treatments.

37

On-Line Wonder Wall

An on-line Wonder Wall was created in collaboration with Michigan State
University’s 4—H Children’s Garden and the Communication Technology Lab (Lownds,
et al., 2004). The on-line Wonder Wall was implemented so that students could remain
connected to the gardens and have their questions answered post-ﬁeld trip. Times were
arranged when garden experts connected on-line with participating classrooms. On-line
chats took place where experts led students in plant science conversations. Students also

posted questions to the Wonder Wall, which were answered by an expert.

Post-Field Trip Follow Up

After the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips were completed, schools were involved in
various forms of post-visit follow up, which was carried out by either the teacher or a
garden expert (Table 2). School A did not participate in follow up activities. The teacher
ﬁ'om school C led post-ﬁeld trip activities on her own after engaging in a 10 minute
conversation with the researcher. The researcher explained what was necessary to
complete the ongoing lettuce experiment and the teacher facilitated one ﬁnal data
collection. Students from school C were also introduced to the on-line Wonder Wall.
School B was visited by the researcher at two different points for ﬁeld trip follow up,
with the ﬁrst visit lasting 30 minutes and the second 50. Lettuce data collection occurred
during both visits, with the last visit also including time for participants to ﬁll out a lab
report (Appendix F). The researcher made one follow up visit to school D during which
the ﬁnal data collection and lab report were completed in about 45 minutes. The

researcher went to school B at two different times following the ﬁeld trips with each visit

38

averaging 45 nrinutes. During one visit the lettuce experiment, including the lab report,
was completed. A different visit focused on the development of inquiry based, student
designed experiments. The same school also utilized the on-line Wonder Wall to
maintain connections with the garden.

Table 2. Post-ﬁeld trip follow up leader and activities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher Expert Led Frnal Lab Student On-line
School Led 1 2 Data Report Desrgned Wonder Wall
Visit Visits Collection Experiments
B X X X
C X X X
D X X X
E X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT
Concept Maps

Student knowledge of plant science was assessed through the use of three
different concept maps: science process, plant and ﬂower parts, and plant problems
(Appendix J). The maps differed not only in content, but also structure. Two different
concept mapping techniques were utilized including a modiﬁed, high-directed “ﬁll-in—
the-map” technique and a low-directed “construct-a-map—from—scratch” technique
(Schau, et al., 1997). Traditionally, the ﬁll-in-the-map method requires participants to
work ﬁom a pre-constructed, skeleton map where nodes/concepts, lines and linking
words are given, but randomly selected nodes and linking words‘are omitted. Subjects
are to ﬁll in these blanks. Skeleton maps for both science process and plant/ﬂower parts
were deveIOped that included 13 concepts for the former and 39 for the latter. Concepts

were selected based on the Seeds of Science curriculum, which was largely shaped by the

39

 

curricular needs of the teachers. Signiﬁcant concepts were identiﬁed and arranged onto
maps, but no connections of any sort were given on either of the maps. Participants were
directed to connect the concepts with lines to represent relationships between them. It
was clearly stated that multiple lines could extend from a single concept, and all concepts
on the maps, regardless of shape could be linked. Students were also informed that if a
concept was unfamiliar it did not have to be linked. Participants were not required to
label the lines and thus did not create complete propositions; however, they were
encouraged toinclude linking words if they felt comfortable with the task. In contrast,
the map constructed from scratch, included only one central concept, “plant problems,”
from which subjects were asked to create their own concepts and links.

The science process map was given within one week of the ﬁrst ﬁeld trip, while
the other two maps were administered between the ﬁrst and second ﬁeld-trip visits. The
same concept maps were distributed following the conclusion of all post-ﬁeld trip
activities. Participants were given a brief explanation of concept mapping, shown an
example, and were given 10 minutes to complete each map. Many ﬁnished before that

time.

Concept map scoring

Two expert concept maps were created and used as rubrics when scoring the pre-
constructed science process and plant/ﬂower parts maps (Appendix K). The concept map
scoring rubrics were developed prior to any data collection. Two experts in the area
worked together to identify appropriate links between the various concepts. Weights

were assigned to each link according to the strength of the relationship and given values

40

of 3, 2, 1, 0 or -1 point(s). All participant concept maps were photocopied and links were
color coded according to the point value of the weighted relationship. Links awarded the
maximum score of 3 points showed the highest level of thought and structural
organization of concepts. Two point links showed less structural organization than 3-
point links, but more so than l-point links. Links awarded l-point are accurate
connections, but show little organization of concepts. Links that scored O-points show an
accurate relationship between two concepts, but not the type of relationship that the maps
were intended on evaluating. For instance, the concepts male and female, when linked
together show a relationship, but the expert rubric was designed to evaluate how male
and female are related to ﬂower parts, so no points were awarded for such a connection.
Scores of -1 reﬂect completely inaccurate connections and were incorporated into the
rubric to avoid wrongfully rewarding random guesses. Two different experts using the
same rubrics scored 20 total maps, 10 each of science process and plant/ﬂower parts.
Scores were very similar, differing by 1 or 2 points. Scores with greater diﬂ‘erences were
the result of human error, overlooking links. One expert, therefore offering consistency

and uniformity in scoring, further evaluated all concept maps.

Science Process

The expert science process rubric contained 8, 3-point links, 12, 2-point links, and
3, l-point links for a maximum score of 51 points. There were speciﬁc connections that
were of interest on both the science process and plant/ﬂower parts map. The science
process map had 7 speciﬁc connections, each of which was a 3-point link. The

connections linked the steps of the science process to each other, versus connecting each

41

step to the concept, science process. For instance, ask a question linked to research
which linked to hypothesis, etc. These links account for 6 of the speciﬁc connections.
The ﬁnal connection of interest links the concepts science process and ask a question;

therefore identifying the start of the process.

Plant and Flower Parts

The expert plant/ﬂower parts rubric had 16, 3-point links, 46, 2-pointlinks, and
15, l-point links for a maximum score of 155 points. There were 4 speciﬁc connections,
weighted at 3-points each, on the plant/ﬂower parts map, which showed expert
organization of ﬂower parts. The connections included pistil to stigma and to ovary,

stamen to anther, and anther to pollen.

Plant Problems

Individual plant problems concept maps were not ascribed a score. Rather,
concepts from all student maps were placed into a sub-category like “not enough water,”
grouped into a larger category like “growing conditions,” and then collectively tallied to
compare differences between pre-visit and post-visit maps. An example of a sub-
category is weather. Concepts such as storm, tornado, and high winds all ﬁt into this sub-
category, but individual student maps could only receive credit for l concept per sub—
category even if several were listed. This was to avoid giving credit for very similar
concepts like tornado and high winds. Sub categories were numerous, but the major plant
problem categories were: growing conditions, insect and disease, humans, symptoms,

treatments and miscellaneous. Growing conditions groups the essentials for healthy plant

42

grth (primarily abiotic factors) such as water, fertilizer, sun, air, etc. Insect and
disease included biotic factors that cause plant problems like aphids and powdery
mildew. Humans refers to actions of people that directly or indirectly cause plant

. problems including pollution or plant removal for human interest or needs, such as
construction, making paper or perfume. Symptoms included descriptions of the plant
problems such as shriveled, spotted, or holey leaves. Treatments suggested what might
be done to overcome the plant problems including plant removal, replacement, spraying,

or taking no action.

Case Studies

Four students’ pre- and post-visit science process and ﬁve students’ plant/ﬂower
parts concept maps were selected as case studies for in depth analysis. Maps were
selected based on one or more of the following criteria: substantial increase in number of
valid links, re-structuring of knowledge including higher-order, 3-point links, or a notable

increase in the number of speciﬁc connections.

Student Lab Reports

Upon completion of the lettuce experiment, students were asked to document their
ﬁndings in a lab report (Appendix F). Each step of the scientiﬁc process was
emphasized. Students used their collected data to create graphs, make sense of their
ﬁndings, and ultimately answer the question being tested. The researcher offered
guidance, examples, and answered questions as students focused on each step of the

report. After completing the lettuce experiment and answering the question of interest,

43'

participants from schools B and D asked new questions that would be ideal for the next
experiment. Due to time limitations a new experiment was not set up. The researcher and
an additional garden expert visited school B to assist students in developing their own,

personal experiments.

Interviews

Students ﬁom schools A, B, and C were interviewed within one week of the
completion of all post-ﬁeld trip activities. Interviews were unstructured and driven by a
set of open-ended questions such as, “What things did you enjoy doing at the gardens?
What sticks out in your memory?” “Do you have any unanswered questions?” The bulk
of the interview questions came ﬁ'om reviewing participants concept maps. The maps
were used as a tool to evoke an explanation as to why certain concepts were linked
together. Students were allowed to add or delete connections on the maps during the
interviews to stimulate further discussions.

Students from schools D and B were interviewed at two different points, one week
prior to the ﬁrst ﬁeld trip and within 3 days following post-ﬁeld trip activities.
Interviews were semi-structured with subjects answering a set of questions, however
more questions were asked upon hearing subjects’ responses. Questions developed in
advance organized the conversation: “What do you wonder about when it comes to
science?” “Describe a time when you were doing science.” “What are the different parts
of a plant?” In addition to these questions, post-interviews for school E also included a

sorting task. Students were asked to group the following words according to how they

felt they should be organized: pistil, stamen, stigma, anther, pollen, root, leaf, ﬂower,

stem, fruit and seed. Participants were then asked to justify their groupings. All

interviews were digitally recorded and later transcribed.

WONDERMENT ASSESSMENT
Questions

All questions regardless of source (Wonder Wall, on-line Wonder Wall, student
designed experiments, or interviews) were initially divided into basic information and
wonderment questions (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1992). According to Bloom’s
taxonomy, basic information questions are knowledge based questions, which are factual
or procedural. All wonderment questions were divided into one of the following
categories: comprehension, application, analysis, or synthesis (Bloom, et al., 1956).
Comprehension questions seek to interpret or retell information. Application questions
are of higher order than comprehension questions and typically produce some result, a
form of problem solving. Analysis questions subdivide something to show how it is put
together, and synthesis questions combine ideas to form a new whole (Bloom, et al.,

1956)

On-line Wonder Wall

All Wonder Wall questions ﬁom the various ﬁeld trips were recorded and
organized. Schools C and E were introduced to the on-line Wonder Wall following post-
ﬁeld trip activities. A garden expert went to each of the schools and explained how to
use the technology. After a brief introduction students posted questions and engaged in

on-line synchronous chats for 30 minutes with garden experts at the 4-H Children’s

45

Garden. Students ﬁom school B were given the web address and some participants
accessed the Wonder Wall at a later date. Asynchronous communication between garden
experts and select students occurred for up to three and a half months aﬁer initial
exposure to the on-line Wonder Wall. The on-line Wonder Wall provided students with
an opportunity to ask questions about their personal experiments they were tending to at

home. Experts answered questions in a timely manner.

46

CHAPTER 3
WHAT INIPACT DO SEEDS OF SCIENCE FIELD TRIPS HAVE ON

STUDENTS’ LEARNING AND KNOWLEDEG STRUCTURE?
RESULTS

CONCEPT MAPS

Concept maps administered pre-ﬁeld trip and post-ﬁeld trip provided evidence
that students had increased their knowledge and reshaped their knowledge structure of
plant science. Students’ science process and plant and ﬂower parts post-maps more
closely resembled the expert map than the pre-maps did. The plant problems concept
maps revealed a broadening of students’ understanding of issues related to causes,

treatments, and symptoms of plant problems.

Science Process

Students’ understanding of science process increased signiﬁcantly following their
Seeds of Science ﬁeld trip experiences for four ofthe ﬁve schools examined (Table 3).
The average pre-visit score was 12.7 points while the average post-visit score increased 3
points. When compared to an expert response map, students correctly identiﬁed 24.9%

of the concepts and this increased to 30.8% following the ﬁeld trips.

47

Table 3. Pre and st-visit science process concept map scores.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School N Mean Pre-visit Mean Post-visit Sig. (2-Tailed)
All 262 12.7 15.7 .000“
A 55 12.9 17.0 .001*
B 29 12.6 16.6 .001*
C 39 12.7 16.0 .013*
D 77 14.3 15.5 .253
E 62 10.5 14.3 .001*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Differences between pre- and post-visit scores were analyzed with paired T-tests.
Signiﬁcant difference at p< .05 is marked with asterisk.

There were seven speciﬁc connections that were also examined in the science
process concept map. The overall mean for pre- and post-visit speciﬁc connections
increased signiﬁcantly ﬁom 1.31 to 1.97 (Table 4). Scores increased signiﬁcantly for
three of the ﬁve schools. School B showed a signiﬁcant increase in score with p<.10. _

Table 4. Pre- and post-visit science process speciﬁc connections scores.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School N Mean Pre-visit Mean Post-visit Sig (2-Tailed)
All 262 1.31 1.97 .000"I
A - 55 1.25 1.67 .118
B 29 1.24 1.90 .055
C 39 1.56 2.64 .001 *
D 77 1.12 1.57 .019*
E 62 1.47 2.34 .000“

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Differences between pre- and post-visit scores were analyzed with paired T-tests.
Signiﬁcant difference at p< .05 is marked with asterisk.
Plant and Flower Parts
Student scores on plant and ﬂower part concept maps increased signiﬁcantly
between pre- and post-visit for all ﬁve schools (Table 5). Pre-visit scores ranged from
8.4 to 16.7 which was 7.1 to 16.6% of the expert map points. Post-visit scores ranged
from 18.9 to 34.8 or 12.2 to 22.5% of the expert map points. Post-visit scores were 9.8 to

20.0 points higher than pre-visit scores.

48

Table 5. Pre- and jost-visit plant and ﬂower parts concept map scores.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School N Mean Mean Change in Sig.
Pre-vi sit Post-visit Mean Q-Tailed)
All 216 11.0 25.8 14.8 000*
A 53 11.0 22.3 11.3 000*
B 32 16.7 34.8 18.1 000*
C 39 8.4 18.9 10.5 .000“
D 69 9.2 29.2 20.0 000*
E 23 12.8 22.6 9.8 001"I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Differences between pre- and post-visit scores were analyzed with paired T-tests.
Signiﬁcant difference at p< .05 is marked with asterisk.

There were four speciﬁc plant and ﬂower part connections of particular interest,
weighted at three points each, which were counted on student maps. The scores for these
speciﬁc connections increased signiﬁcantly for four of the ﬁve schools (Table 6). Pre-
visit connections ranged from 0.07 to 0.87 or 1.8 to 21.8% of the expert score. Post-visit
connections increased 50.7 to 90.8%. Only school C did not show a signiﬁcant increase
in score at the 0.05% level.

Table 6. Pre- and post-visit plant and ﬂower parts speciﬁc connections scores.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School N Mean Pre-visit Mean Post-visit Sig. (2-Tailed)
All 216 .34 1.5 .000“
A 53 .42 1.34 .000“
B 32 .44 2.09 .000“
C 39 .33 .67 .085
D 69 .07 1.65 .000“
E 23 .87 2.00 005*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Differences between pre- and post-visit scores were analyzed with paired T-tests.
Signiﬁcant difference at p< .05 is marked with asterisk.

In addition to the four speciﬁc connections mentioned above, the ability of
students to identify the stamen as the male ﬂower part and the pistil as female was
examined. The ability of students to identify the stamen as the male ﬂower part and pistil
as the female ﬂower part increased across all schools (Table 7). For individual schools,
scores increased signiﬁcantly for 3 of the 5 schools examined. Pre-visit scores showed

that only 6% of students identiﬁed stamens as male and 9% identiﬁed pistil as female.

49

This ranged from 3 to 17% for stamens and 1 to 17% for pistils among the schools. Post-
visit scores showed that on average 41% of students identiﬁed stamens as male ﬂower
parts and 49% identiﬁed pistils as female ﬂower parts. This ranged form 5 to 72% for
stamens and 21 to 91% for pistils among the schools (Table 7).

Table 7. Association of stamen with male and pistil with female ﬂower parts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School N % Correct % Correct Post- Sig. (2-Tailed)
Pre-Visit Visit

Stamen Pistil Stamen Pistil Stamen Pistil
All 216 6 9 41 49 .000“ .000*
A 53 8 13 38 43 .000“ .000*
B 32 3 9 72 91 .000“ .000“

C 39 10 10 5 21 .421 .253
D 69 l 1 52 55 000* .000“

E 23 17 17 30 30 .328 .328

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Differences between pre- and post-visit scores were analyzed with paired T-tests.
Signiﬁcant difference at p< .05 is marked with asterisk.

Plant Problems

All concepts from the plant problems maps were grouped into six categories.
Combining concepts from all participating schools, concept number was higher in post-
visit maps than it was in the pre-visit going ﬁ'om 1612 to 2047. Categories that showed
signiﬁcant differences were: insect and disease, symptoms, and treatments (Figure 1).
The insect and disease category showed the greatest gain in concept number with 401

(Figure 2), an increase of 1.51 concepts per student map.

50

. is: a? 3:5 a 3. va a 88sec 38585 .82.... Bi. .23
38:28 803 £2.88 E880 e833 8935 £98 ﬁrtﬂoq an: .95 no 3988 25395 «SE mo 838:: 18,—. A 83E
8:335 £880

“SEE—co
2683323 38:58:. gm aﬁaam 0385 .828 9:320

 

 

 

 

 

60m.
PEI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

. goon—£023

 

 

802200

3.85

 

 

are: a? 3:3 a 3. Va 3 888% adage .383 8%..
£5 cosh—«5 0.83 pan—8:: $380 8952. 82.98.99 £3.38 3- .oa Benson 3988 «83595 :33 E owed—6 .N 833

8.893 Eases as:

g

 

 

nag—32.“.

 

 

Eon—Bum

 

adaman—

.80qu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 0o“-

52

SCIENCE PROCESS CONCEPT MAP CASE STUDIES

Four students’ science process concept maps were selected to illustrate the gain in
knowledge as well as the restructuring of knowledge as a result of the Seeds of Science
ﬁeld trips. Gains in knowledge were evidenced by changes in total scores. Total scores
increased for all students (Table 8). Total valid links, which are total links minus
incorrect links, increased dramatically for students A and B, slightly for D and decreased
by 1 for C. Students showed an increase in the highest weighted connections, (those
scored at 3 points each), between pre- and post-visits (Table 8). Student A went ﬁ'om 0
to 2, students B and C went from one 3-point connection to identifying all 8 in the post-
visit map, and student D went ﬁ'om 3 to 6, therefore showing a more expert-like
knowledge structure. Incorrect links were relatively similar pre- and post-visit for
student A, B and C, but decreased greatly for student D. The way in which students’
knowledge was structured also varied ﬁom pre— to post-visit concept maps (Figure 3,
Table 8). Students A and B identiﬁed all of the steps of the science process; however,
student A connected all of the steps to the science process bubble whereas student B
showed ordering of the steps. Student B clearly showed that the science process begins
by asking a question and each step builds off of the previous; therefore showing the
cyclical nature of the process. Both students showed a gain in knowledge and knowledge
structure, student A going ﬁ'om nearly a blank map to a much more complex map and
student B going ﬁ'om very few connections to a much more expert based, higher-order

thinking map.

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8. Pre- and Post-visit science arocess scores for 4 individual students.
Student Total links 1 pt. links 2 pt. links 3 pt. links Incorrect Total score
links
Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
A 3 18 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 3 2 27
B 8 13 1 1 3 2 1 8 3 2 7 27
C 12 12 l 0 9 4 l 8 1 2 21 30
D 20 16 1 1 9 8 3 6 7 l 21 34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-visit concept maps by students C and D showed that they did in fact have
prior knowledge of science process, which is evident by the links from science process to
nearly all of the steps (Figure 3, Table 8). The post-visit map of student C is very similar
to student B. Student C identiﬁed the ﬁrst step of the process by connecting science
process to ask a question. The steps were then connected to each other instead of linking
each to science process. Student D linked each step to science process as was done in the
pre-map, but also connected the steps to each showing a relationship between the steps

and the process.

54

 

Figure 3. Pre— and Post-visit science process case studies. Student work depicted below.
Student Pre—Visit Map Post-Visit Map
A

 

 

 

  
 

 
   
  

[:1ntornet,

  
   
 

 
  
 

    

    
   

 

   
 

 

l .- ___ Internet,
“"\i‘ ‘1'rr N~~—_~W-~ ~ ~ “......‘Mm
...,‘L 1., ﬂ _ , colts eo le
1‘ books; people ﬁx“; Rub-"m ] m u b a l P P ‘l— Rnurch WW
Step by step Step by step
m2:- [ 13"0‘30‘m"“an!"re
; :zanr. - '
in...“ ..........
l 1 Ask a

 

   

 

x/l7

Science
Process

/l

VT‘:-————~~,w Science
l Your best .4. Process

question

   
    

 

    
 
  

guess

 

 

 
 
   

   
 

     
    

 

l m .4 '
3.12:2, (Welgn an " D.“
f Explain data 1 .xpﬂ‘mwt EXP'ﬂ'" d“- "mama:
‘ ll . . . .
“new. ,9. A ..
...... \ ﬂ:
Collect data \ I Collec ate
:mu; 712mm . ‘z - r k: ~ I
— - * w \ w
\___..y——
' cmm with Take
1 j Graph ! Charts wlth ‘ 'J' ‘ . If. numbers Plﬂlﬂ'“
H H numbers . , ’1

   

 

 
 

Paw——

1 Internet, _
1 books, people

. 4351‘ a:‘:.’r‘1*r‘»"'=\-'v'r.

---—:—~-—*— _ . _. " T I Research
Step by step . v step by step
’ procedure ‘ .1 .-; " -" '- " ‘ . " procedure
. ’ - 7’ W/
(. questlo-n ‘ ‘ ’ ‘ . . .

l} " Science l.-
‘1‘
i ; Process ,

\‘3- “V \/ r——-—- .

\“‘l
1‘ Internet.

I hooks. people
mﬂzm

     
    
 

Research

    
  
  

j
1

 
  

Ask a
questlon

     
 
 
 

Science
Process

cw

 
   

Your best
guess

. .
Your beet
guess

     
 
 
   
  

   

..—

Explaln data Explain data

  
 
   

   

/./."T)I".4‘£»"r:'1'2.~.‘- l. mn‘. " u; 7.

 
   

  

 
 

 

 

 

 

'W‘. ' '. 1“..- ~ ... ‘ ./
Collect data 3 .: Collect data” 5
l
\
m N Y ‘m
Charts wlth '-' Take Graph .> I Chart: with Take
numbers pictures ' " numbers plcturee

 

55

 

 

“lei:

Figure 3 continued.

 

 

Student

Pre-Visit Map

Post-Visit Map

 

C

 

‘ i Internet.

‘ books p30 I. '3 l,._.:.:':::..:: "if,
A::::::E:::§:::. \‘I\I“*\a~\\1’ Re"“"h VT::::::::::,_
H 1 Step by step

 

,___..___W-
> > ~ ~ procedure

-....MA. .../:14.

   
   
  

 

l] Hypothesls

/l Lw ~—
_ \ A; 7 ---.-m-.. \
' Scrence .. - , w_ ....-.
Process ,' Your best
.\ ‘ guess

L.’.‘_...._ ...“... Lexi“...

 

 

  
   

l f Design an

1 experiment
l AW”.
.. . _ _.___ .,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
  

  
    

 

   
 
 

Internet.
books, people

Research

  

 
 

    
  
  
   

r
E

W
Step by step
, procedure

 

‘ l

 

 
  

a A /1
Science
Process

 
  
 

Your best
guess

 

 
 
 
 

4

     
 

 

Design en
; experiment
“wig 33".; 71 A1213”):

   
 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  
 

Collect data‘g

   
 

  
   

 

 

 

 

.\
0me l' WV .m (I ' T;Z""“" ' .
H Graph l Charts with I; Take an“, Take
4 g 1 ’ numbers 1 l plctures ' pictures
C“ " .....le I surrender: \L..:rr.z.sm>
D
'\_—"*' ____
| Internet, r__ ..__._.w Internet,
b k l "'“ﬂ"""""*"”'"" , books en lo
1:”;2 MOP . _ I 5 Research "‘“wm ' ... . W ' P lemma w
' Step by step ‘ Step by step
procedure procedure
‘iwa3'V-m .-:-';.‘ :32»; ’..'-'~',f.l'..", “ﬁring:
' ‘:.“*'“.. ._::::—*‘ ,f /
5"::“-- Hypothesls ' '/’ "
I ! Ask a

li_ﬁ_q_ueetlcm ,1, _ . /\ . ' . w; r a”; ‘
T ‘- 1‘ _ . Science I
Process

 
 
 
 
  
  

..zl’ Your best
guess
‘

  
 

 

Deslgn an
Explaln dltl .xporlmﬂnt ‘

“‘1

 

m
' Collect data

 
 
  
  
  

   

. .

    

       

 

.~ Als~r

Charts wlth . ’ l Take
plctures

numbers ‘
' . , " I ml:

 

 

 

    
       

 
 
 
   
 

  

       
 

 
  

Science
Process

m
Your best
guess

1:.Llilu.r-'l.4.,';.;. "‘ "

. .L. ,1“:

. w

Design en
experiment

with. . “J... '4 H

 
 
  

 
 

——-——
Take
plcturee

 

 

 

 

PI

WE

par

ma

Sti.‘

ma

U. ./.___.i i 37:

 

COD
StUi

not

forn
leVe
Skid.

POSt.

PLANT AND FLOWER PARTS CONCEPT MAP CASE STUDIES

Pre- and post-visit plant and ﬂower part maps from ﬁve different students were

selected to look more closely at the links. Total scores and total number of valid links

were greater for post-visit compared to pro-visit (Table 9). Overall, the plant and ﬂower

parts pre-visit concept maps were less extensive and complex compared to post-visit

maps. Total links increased between 29 and 84%, while valid links increased between 74

and 23 6%. Incorrect links decreased for all students except E, which remained the same.

Student D showed the greatest decrease in invalid links going from 10 in the pro-visit

map to just one in the post-visit map.

Table 9. Pre- and post-visit plant and ﬂower parts scores for 5 individual students.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Total links 1 pt. links 2 pt. links 3 pt. links Incorrect Total score
links

Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post-

E 19 35 3 2 15 25 0 7 l l 32 72
F 26 37 3 2 17 24 3 7 4 39 67
G 28 43 3 6 14 29 O 4 11 4 20 72
H 21 38 2 7 9 26 O 4 10 1 10 70
I 21 27 l l 5 ll 2 7 13 8 4 36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post-visit maps of students of E, F, G, and H showed an increase in knowledge

concerning leaves and photosynthesis (Figure 4). This is evident in the number of links.

Student E went from 2 links off of leaves to 4. Furthermore, the following concepts were

not linked at all in the pre: photosynthesis, carbon dioxide, C02, oxygen, 02, and stomata.

In the post-map student E had 2 links oﬁ‘ of photosynthesis, connected the chemical

formula with the appropriate gas and had 3 links to stomata, two of which were higher

level links. Similarly, student F went from 2 links off of leaves in the pre-visit map and

student G had only one link. Both students increased the links off of leaves to 5 in the

post-visit map.

57

 

In the pre-visit map only student E was able to identify the stamen as male and the
pistil as female (Figure 4). All students identiﬁed the male ﬂower part as the stamen and
the female part as the pistil in post-visit maps. Post-visit maps revealed expert-like
organization of ﬂower part concepts. Students E, F, G, and H went from zero speciﬁc
connections to linking all four. Student H differed from E, F, and G in the pre-visit map.
There were no valid links from ﬂower parts other than the concept ‘petals.’ In general
there were very few ﬂower part concepts linked. However, the post-map showed expert-
like organization of concepts, similar to that of students E, F, and G. Students E, F, and
G showed a restructuring of knowledge whereas student H took new knowledge and put
it into an expert framework immediately.

Student I approached identifying plant parts differently than the other four
students (Figure 4). Individual plant parts were connected to each other, as if the student
was visualizing a plant and assembling it roots up. In the pre-visit map student I had one
3-point link, but in the post-visit map this increased to 4 links. The concept stem was
linked to the concepts ‘ﬂower,’ ‘root,’ and ‘leaves.’ Also, ‘fruit’ was connected to
‘seed.’ These links show a more sophisticated level of thinking. Each plant part leads to

another versus just connecting a speciﬁc plant part to the concept ‘plant parts.’

58

 

Figure 4. Pre- and Post-visit plant and ﬂower parts case studies.

 

Student

Pre-Visit Map

Post-Visit Map

 

E

 
 

rum-m . Mann mm

 
  
 

 

 
           
   

Aachen
plum l a. IN plum Fallon
EMﬂPLII won on may“.
"own. I. l I . v
“" Xylnm anni no! mam (K
‘ mmu'tmn plnnl ‘

    
 

 

 
 

V band mu.
I! IN nun

  
 
  
 

Mn Ich. pummunn
like hr -a ma I‘ III

   
 
 
 
   

cam. um
or run

Oruws mluI-I II
Wl‘l-I Imm In"

  
  

    
   

  

Mme nnnI Inna .. . 7 ,

I I
up Ilrnt'm ”Mun-I In \
avaIy

“on“!

 

Turn! “1"th I.
«who phlnl I

         

0mm

plmmml
an (:01 Manon IIIIII Imam. plan;
“out Inform oh IIIIN‘

 
    

cu livaymylt

 
 

llplm'd wary

,’ , ,
AIIIIEII pulllnnion.
Mr M Imd Huh

 
    
 

 

I
D! mwimhn m NIL '-
wn'uv hum Iull

 

 
 

Rl'nnni away

ﬁnch-II
plum

Cmmrmlo "I01!- lo kill-'0 I.
"avail. I lnlil

~" Plum
PI"!

' Nﬂlp\ plan! “mi
nap rall'lI

male 3:»! In»:

\7 vwcg;
cmmmu

 
 

Mun load (MI ‘
ll! ﬁlm

"I WI”
up In. mm

tomcat

had In the km»

   
   
   
   
   
      
    
   
   
   
  
 
    

 
 

an. thu NIINTI mm

 

 

 

       

 
 
  
 
 

". . _ T 1"” H;
' I ' Aachen i Phloem I Mavu want
F away ‘ pllnl ’ up lhI ﬁlnl

 

 

.e I ”0‘ lo luv...
ﬂoworl‘ x mm

can"

        
  

 

1 and:

 
  

we: loo-l (In .r)
thnu'thI Mun-It

 

    
   

lumen

 

     
 

nllnln lnvl
Ilka NJ: :nd Ilvdu

  
 
 
 

 

Drawn minerals
wulu tram loll

 

"It: :lunl II
nil M

    
 

i FIUN‘V ' l

 

1’7an Iumllghl to
mnkI plum land

l
I

(make: plant

 

   

Pm tlht
load In the form a! Iuanr

 

 
 

chlovuwyﬂ’

 

L mum-a ovIry I

 

 

 
  

nnmcu "mum-n
Ilka beII and hlrds

l

  

will" 'lﬂm Iml

   

 

 
 
  

 

‘ me; mkwlnlu It

Rlponvd wary

  

A new"
plant

I
cannrtxu room to lulu“.
I... In!

1‘ tto‘psplnnln-nd
E up IIIIHM

Yupt Imllnht (I
”Inna ylnnt load

Chmrnphyll

  

V ram-mm.

Morn warn
up no ply-m

 

ell-elm
MIhI;III'::ut pleat

Full“

I Frauen IIIIII untrue punt
tom! ,1 I

 

  
       
 
  

 
 
   

      
 
  
   
 
  
 
    
    
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
 
   

   

III the tunnel-II II

 

 

59

 

 

 

 

 

E—IC. —(

Figure 4 continued.

 

Student

Pre-Visit Map

Post-Visit Map

 

G

 
 
   

   
 
     
   

I [III-mm
III-III

NIlm-m 1 Mann «III-I
' upIm-pw

Xylvvn / Mo lm III-gnu
‘ III-:ugIIInI Man
“And mm.- . 39AMU"
« IN! III. I

‘ AIIIIIIII

   
    
 
 
     
 
      
 
 
 
   

 
    

mmmIIII IIIIIIIIII lnIIIn-n, .
”Own '| PoIIIII

II. II "III

III. III

-/

AIIIIIIII. ImIImaIuI»
III”. Ina-I mm IIIIIII.

 
   
   
 
 

i Illlli IIIII
oI IIIIIIII ’v‘ P
and .- 2 . \
umw- mum-All. l. / \r 3;
DIFV "DUI 10"

run! l

M
l . sum-III

rum ma.» IIIaIII IlnnII
I'M!

It'll"

mm

 
   

0:"th
Illa-kh-

   

II." “mum la
Im- km! 1|”de

“Ii-11h
IIIng-III

I. um "mu. IIIIInI
In“ III "In '07!" on Inna

Chlorophyﬂ

 

“mom-A uuvy

 

     
      
    
     
 

  

Annhafl

Mon WI‘OI'.‘
up III. plant

 
   

Egmu‘cu :02!- Io luv".
"owns, A hull

 
 
 

Moval laud (mo-I)

throughout pIII-II

  
       
   
   
 
  
 

Found Insld.

_.“ :1”; ‘7‘ ' 7'
l AIIr-ch pIIIIIIIIIurI

Ilka lulu and hlvdl

   

 

H sails—Ii:
a! mum

 

‘ DIII Ilm mm- H‘-
l WIIQVIIOIIIID"

I
l
l

 

 

 
 
  

 

l Tvlpl In:IInIIIIo
1 ma.

 

     

Frau III “III ml III-III
land In th- Ionn er lugII

   

 

 

      
      
 
 
 

an what
up III. plant

       

  
    
 

Carmen!- wot- to lan l
"ovum. 6 mm

 

I ’IIIIQI'I' 7
’ VII-ml III-lu-
nl III. mm

   
 

 

 

l
31 remain

       

Fllnl nIIIIo Im-
PIN ‘ , a! plum! [ .

Attend» uollIIIr-IIIII 7
mm bra: and bIIuI ' A

   

ll

 

Now: ”It“; III?" pIIaIII-anImIII

l

   

   

\ .' ..H‘ _, ' “‘
1' omen ~ yuan

ll: 7'an IImIIuIIII .
l IIIIIIIII plan no" III

       

IIInIIIlIoII :lmﬁ
Ionl III l:u:'ﬂ1m all

    

CIIlvvophyll

     

I! IIIIIIIIIM uvIIry

 

 

 

anon WAIII
III plunl

     
    
     
     
   
  
    

  
 
   
 

AuIIIIII

 

Command III-II In human.
now rlu‘fﬂl"

  

Mvv “marl
“Jim." phat

 

    
 

IN MI IIIIIIIIIIIurI
mu; ham IIIII! IIIIIIL

   

Idlb vnIIII
III IIIIIIII

 

.‘ ,
i Drawn IIIIIIIIIIIIK ll.
Mar "om ull

 

 

fﬁf. LOIVII
leI ' I

§\ pIIoInyIIIImII

 

 

     
   
 

 

TV: ""7 Oxygnu
‘7 TIMI! Iunlluhl III I
l V make-ulmuood i1 "mun“ ..
. - -- 00: None" mmmnkn pIIIIII
‘1... .1.— eklumnhyll I Inna III the lorm a1 IMIM’
RlpIIImd ovary ' ' ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

 

 

 

 

FTiI

 

rEL—zium

 

I

 

 

 

 

ANSWERS T0 WONDER WALL QUESTIONS

On the third and ﬁnal ﬁeld trip, students from school B were asked to write
responses to questions posted on the wonder wall during their earlier ﬁeld trips. The
questions and answers below illustrate their knowledge of plant science (Table 10).
Questions were selected to represent different levels of thought, comprehension being the
lowest level and synthesis being the highest level. Comprehension questions involve
interpretation of information. Application questions use problem solving to generate
answers and apply information to produce some result. Synthesis questions combine
ideas to form a new whole (Bloom, et al., 1956).

Table 10. Selected examples of student questions and their answers.

 

Question Type Question Answers

 

 

Comprehension How many times Most plants only grow once, but some others
can a plant grow? grow once a year for a few years.

They can grow inﬁnite because it can reproduce
for a guess of 1,000 times. Since a plant can

 

reproduce it can make a lot of itself.
Aplant cangrowasmanytirnesas itwantsas
long as it has seeds.
How does lettuce Lettuce reproduces with its ﬂowers because it
reproduce? has a pistil.

Lettuce reproduces by its ﬂowers. All plants
reproduce by their ﬂowers so the lettuce should.

Lettuce has seeds on the ﬂower.

 

Does lettuce have Yes. Lettuce has seeds. It needs seeds to
seeds? reproduce. All plants need to reproduce to be
counted as living things.

Yes. It has seeds because it has a ﬂower and
that is its only mac.

 

Is lettuce a Lettuce is not a ﬂower. Lettuce is a leaf. The
ﬂower? What lettuce plant can grow ﬂowers, but lettuce itself
part of the plant is is not a ﬂower.

lettuce?

 

 

 

62

 

Table 10 continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do plants Plants take in carbon dioxide, sunlight, and
give oﬂ‘ oxygen? water to mix with chlorophyll to make plant
food and oxygen.
Do plants need Yes, plants need leaves to survive because they
leaves to survive? take in carbon dioxide and lets off oxygen.
Application Why is it so It’s important to fertilize because the plant
important to needs extra nutrients to grow strong. Fertilizer
fertilize? How or nutrients help a plant to grow strong. Plants
does fertilizer need nutrients so fertilizer is a big help.
help a plant?
Why don’t some Some plants don’t die in the winter because the
plants die in the snow is like a warm blanket, with no wind to
winter? freeze the plant or no one to pull out or hurt it.
How do plants A plant knows which season it is because the
know which time of day, if the days are getting shorter or
season is which? lcmger.
Does chlorophyll Yes, chlorophyll does wear off then it grows
wear off? back in the spring.
How do plants They eat by taking in water and minerals from
eat? the roots.
Plants eat by their leaves. They use their leaves
to get sunlight. The process is called
photosynthesis.
Can plants grow Yes, plants can grow in the arctic. Plants can
in the arctic? adapt to their surroundings.
Do all plants need No, not all plants need soil such as moss. Moss
soil and sun? grows on rocks. All green plants need sun to
live though. .
How do plants When the plant is a bud, the sepals will protect
protect it. When a plant grows older, it may develop
themselves? poison or barbs to protect it.
Some plants have prickles or bad smells to
protect themselves.
Synthesis If four ﬂowers The other three seeds took all of the water and
' were planted and nutrients.
only three grew, ,
what could be the The other three plants are taller than the one
cause? and it can’t get enough sun.
Does a poinsettia No, because all chlorophyll is green.
have red
chlorophyll?

 

 

 

63

 

Answers reﬂect a sound understanding of plant science and the ability of students
to hypothesize, trying to make sense of the question based on their current understanding
and knowledge level. Students were able to use the information they learned and apply it

to questions and scenarios they had not encountered previously.

INTERVIEWS

Personal, one on one interviews provided students an opportunity to verbalize
their understanding of plant science. A11 excerpts are ﬁ'om post-visit interviews. In most
cases students had their post-visit concept maps in front of them and referred to them to
explain their understanding of speciﬁc concepts. Students were allowed to add links as
they were explaining relationships if they discovered new connections while verbalizing
their thoughts. Four major topics were discussed: science process, ﬂower parts,
photosynthesis, and plant problems.

Students demonstrated a good working knowledge of science process indicating
its start and the order of the process (Table 11). Students could give a good explanation
of the relationships among the female ﬂower parts and their ﬁrnction (Table 12), and the
male ﬂower parts and their ﬁinction (Table 13). Students gave good explanations of the
relationships between seeds and ovary and where seeds were located (Table 14).
Students recognized the relationships among photosynthesis, carbon dioxide, and oxygen
and could explain that (Table 15). In addition, they displayed a good understanding of
relationships among leaves, photosynthesis, stomata, carbon dioxide, and oxygen (Table

15). Students’ understanding of plant problems was directly related to the concepts

64

addressed on the Seeds of Science ﬁnal ﬁeld trip. Students were able to explain their

reasoning quite well (Table 16).

Table 11. Science process concept map connections and student explanations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept Map
Representation
Research
r7 .. f" -. up, a N.\‘
1‘. \\
./' \
/ \cx
H othesis
Ask a yp
question U» «Luv» ..
’ Science
Process {
3 A. -
R .W 1 Design an
Explain data , . experiment
l/l"'- ..‘f- --’2" ‘ ’7—
\ Collect data /* ‘

Question Why did you make a circle? When you get to the end, how
come you have a line between
explain data and ask a question?

Explanation That’s how you do the whole Since there was no ‘ask new

thing. When you ask a question question’ I connected it here.

you explain it and then that

question is answered. You answer You can ask another question and

your own question. do the science process all over
again with your new question.

 

 

65

 

Table 12. Female ﬂower parts concem map connections and student explanations.

 

 

    
 
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept Map
Representation \ ’ V
’ Flower Female
Parts
Questions Why do you have a link between ﬂower parts and pistil?
Why is female connected to pistil and then pistil connected to both
ovary and stigma?
Explanations The pistil is the female part of the ﬂower and the stigma is the sticky ‘

 

part on top of the pistil. It’s usually sticky and that’s where the pollen
gets stuck to the stigma, which goes down to the ovary part and makes
the seeds and that’s the pollination. So it’s making seeds.

Because the stigma is female and is also on top of the pistil and the
pistil is also female and the ovary is female.

The stigma is part of the pistil which is the female part. The ovary is
below the stigma where the seed is made.

 

66

 

Table 13. Male f ower parts concept map connections and student explanations.

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept Map
Representation "7"
Pollen
Questions Why did you connect male to stamen, stamen to anther, and anther to
pollen?
Explanations The pollen is on top of the anther. The anther is on top of the stamen

and the stamen is male and so is the pollen.

I connected ﬂower parts to stamen because stamens are the male parts
of the ﬂower, which pollinate the pistil because the stamen have the
anthers and the anthers hold pollen.

The stamen is the ﬁlament and the anther combined and the anther is
the top part that gives oﬁ’ the pollen.

 

The stamen is made up of twgpaits and one of them is the anther.

 

67

 

Table 14. Seed and fruit concept map connections and student explanations.

 

Concept Map
Representation

 

Found inside

 

 

' ‘ Flower Parts /
.1 , , 2 \

\

 

 

 

 

 

Question You have a link between seed and found inside of fruit, and seed
connected to ovary, so when you eat a fruit what part of the ﬂower are
you eating?

 

 

Explanations The seed ﬁrst starts out in the ovary and once the seed develops it (the
ovary) forms into a fruit.

Pollen from another ﬂower... because a bee comes and it goes to the
pistil and rubs it all over the stigma, and it goes down to the ovary and
the seed is fertilized, and then the ovary grows into a ﬁuit.

The fruit comes from the pistil and ovary area because the seeds are
ﬁ'om the ovary.

 

 

68

 

Table 15. Photo

hesis concept map connections and student explanations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept Map r
Representation
Photosynthesis
Carbon Oxygen
dioxide ._ .
O
2 C 02
Questions Tell me a bit about photosynthesis. How come you have links from
Why do you have photosynthesis 02 to oxygen, and C02 to carbon
linked to carbon dioxide and dioxide?
oxygen?
Explanations Photosynthesis has to have It’s the abbreviated form.

 

oxygen, which is 02 I think and it
has to have carbon dioxide, which
is C02 and then of course it’s a
process that makes food in the
form of sugar. It takes in carbon
dioxide and oxygen gets breathed
out. Animals or human beings
breathe it in and animals breathe
out carbon dioxide.

 

 

69

 

Table 15 continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
   
       
 

 
          
 

 

 

 

Concept Map \
Representation ‘
Leaves
—
Carbon
dioxide
4‘ .. -. - :4. l . .(_
Questions Why do you have stomata connected to leaves? How do carbon
dioxide and oxygen factor in with stomata and leaves?
Explanations They are these tiny holes on the leaf and they let the carbon dioxide in

 

and push oxygen out.

That’s the really small hole in the leaf. There are two guards. They
would let carbon dioxide in and oxygen out.

The leaves have the stomata, which are the holes and the stomata take
in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen.

 

7O

 

Table 16. Plant problems concept map connections and student explanations. Images are
that of student work.

 

Concept Map
Representation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions When you went around the What are some things that could
children’s garden looking for plant cause color change or the holes in
problems, what were you looking leaves?
for? How could you tell if it was a
plant problem? .

Explanations Like maybe 5 leaves out of 20 The holes probably the insect is
would be red and shriveled and eating at it. Ifit’s shriveled up
then all the others would be green maybe there’s a disease in it. If
and healthy looking or maybe one it’ s and entirely different color it
leaf would be eaten and turning might be disease.
brown or yellow and the others
were a different color. Caterpillars make the holes in

leaves.
I was looking for insect holes in
the leaves and the different colors
from the nutrients problem.

 

 

71

 

Table 16 continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept Map
Representation
Question Explain why you have bugs to aphids to plant loses sugar.
Explanation Because aphids are insects or bugs and the aphids bite the leaf and start
toeatthe spgag, sotheplant startsto lose its sugar.
0011069th \
Representation
Questions Why do you have ladybugs on Biological control is like good
your map? insects eating bad insects...
Explanations Because ladybugs eat aphids. If Like ladybugs eating aphids!
you spray a plant you are going to
have to take it out because it
sometimes kills it. It can kill the
bugs and hurt the plant.

 

 

72

 

Table 16 continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept Map
Representation
Plant
Problems
I
\

vu3$ 1

Wing ‘\’ h M uy
Question Why do you have aphids and bug spray and bugs chewing through the

plant? -

Explanation Bugs chewing through are aphids and if you want to get off the aphids

 

you need the bug spray and bug spray controls the bugs that are
chewing through, but then again bug spray kills theplant.

 

73

 

DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips offer students many opportunities to explore and
discover through hands-on activities and authentic scientiﬁc investigations. These
opportunities occur within the rich context of the 4—H Children’s Garden across several
visits and were integrated into the plant science unit. This type of support and
scaffolding would be expected to result in marked content learning. Such results were
observed throughout the Seeds of Science.

Hands-on activities facilitate the construction of concepts and enhance
meaningful learning, providing the necessary framework to incorporate new knowledge
into long term memory (Orion, 1993). Providing direct experiences with concrete
phenomena is the main role of the ﬁeld trip and is essential in the learning process
(Orion, 1993). The Seeds of Science curriculum gives students direct experiences with
scientiﬁc phenomena. Students learned about science process through activities where
they ordered the steps of the process and examined the shape of science. In addition, all
experiments explicitly focused on science process steps. Hands-on activities such as
collecting and pressing ﬂowers, followed by labeling the parts, provided students a direct
experience to learn and develop the cognitive ﬁamework for new ﬂower part
information. Similarly, plant problems involved student exploration of the garden,
collecting samples, sketching, and an interactive technology piece. Such experiences
“invite an avalanche of questions and foster the webwork of connections that conﬁgurate

a learning life” (Carr, 1989).

74

Piaget (1964) stated, “To know an object is to act on it.” Learners must
physically manipulate objects in their environment for learning to be internalized
(Rudmann, 1994). Through carefully designed curriculum, Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips
push students to experience plants by acting on them, and engage students in hands-on,
minds-on activities. Through these experiences students take an active role in their own
learning in contrast to rote learning (memorization) that will not be assimilated (Novak,
1993). Swds of Science is designed to foster student learning and promote development

of new knowledge structures.

STUDENT LEARNING
Science Process

Students involved in the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips increased their understanding
of science process. The increase in science process speciﬁc connections (Table 4) was
also likely a direct result of Seeds of Science activities. Schools C, D, and E showed
signiﬁcant differences (p<0.05 and school B at p< 0.10) in science process speciﬁc
connections, whereas school A did not (Table 4). School A was the only school that did
not receive any form of post-visit follow up. The post-visit activities, especially for those
schools involved with the lettuce growth and evaluation lab report, provided a framework
for understanding the science process in its entirety. By completing the lab report,
students experienced each step of the science process within the context of an experiment
they did. Therefore the lack of change for school A may be the result of no ﬁeld trip
follow up. The lower signiﬁcance level for school B may be related to the fact that two

diﬂ‘erent teachers were responsible for teaching science, one of whom had the steps of the

75

science process posted in her classroom. One step, “research,” was omitted from her
process. Students in her class may have been more apt to connect “ask a question”
directly to “hypothesis,” thereby skipping “research.” In doing so, negative point values
would have been awarded and fewer correct speciﬁc connections would have been tallied

in their post-visit maps.

Plant and Flower Parts

Plant/ﬂower parts concept maps, showed signiﬁcant differences between pre- and
post-visit scores for all schools (Table 5). All schools, except C showed signiﬁcant
diﬂ‘erences in plant and ﬂower parts speciﬁc connections (Table 6). School C was one of
the ﬁrst schools to be involved with Seeds of Science and although they spent three full
days at the garden, there was not enough time to discuss individual ﬂower parts.
Students did collect and press ﬂowers, but the details of the ﬂower parts were not
covered; therefore, it is not surprising that there was not a signiﬁcant increase in speciﬁc
connections, since the connections are all ﬂower part links. Likewise, school C did not
show a signiﬁcant diﬂ‘erence in identifying stamen with male and pistil with female,
whereas schools A, B, and D did (Table 7). School E also did not show a signiﬁcant

difference associating stamen and pistil with male and female.

Plant Problems
Through the plant problems curriculum, students signiﬁcantly increased their
knowledge of insects and disease, plant problem symptoms, and treatments (Figure l).

Post-visit maps covered a much broader spectrum of plant problems revealing a more

76

diverse idea of what constitutes a plant problem, how it can be identiﬁed as well as
treated. This new information is directly from the plant problem activities in the garden
as well as on the interactive plant problems computer software. This is most exciting
because post-visit is the ﬁrst that students went beyond what the problems were and
thought about solutions. Comparing pre- and post-visit maps is a way of documenting an
intellectual journey. A child’s mental representation of knowledge about a topic is a

valid indication of that child’s current state of understanding (King, 1994).

KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE
Science Process

Looking closely at individual student pre- and post-visit science process and
plant/ﬂower parts maps, reveals a general trend of increasing complexity and a greater
number of valid and higher-order links (Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and Figures 3, 4). As students
gain knowledge their concept maps become increasingly more interconnected (Ruiz-
Primo and Shavelson, 1996). Carey (1986) pointed out: “By comparing successive
concept maps, produced as the student gains mastery of the domain, the researcher can
see how knowledge is restructured in the course of acquisition.” All science process case
studies had very few, if any, higher-order, 3-point links in pro-visit maps (Figure 3).
Student A clearly gained knowledge since the pre-visit map was virtually blank and the
post-visit map had many more valid links (Figure 3). Student A’s concept map reveals an
understanding of the steps of the science process, but not how the steps relate to each
other. Similar to student A, student B’s pro-visit map had very few valid links.

Comparing pre- and post-visit maps, student B moved ﬁ'om not being able to identify a

77

single step of the science process to putting the steps into an expert framework. Unlike
students A and B, students C and D identiﬁed steps of the science process in pre-visit
maps (Figure 3). Post-visit maps reveal that knowledge was restructured. In post-visit
maps they clearly showed how each step of the process leads to a new step, ultimately

showing that the process is ongoing.

Plant and Flower Parts

Ausubel (1968) claimed that “the most important single factor inﬂuencing
learning is what the learner already knows.” As the constructivist theory suggests,
students learn only if they actively construct knowledge from existing prior knowledge
(Lanzing, 1996). In order for information to be remembered and retrievable new
knowledge should be integrated into existing structures (Lanzing, 1996). Novak (1993)
reported that learners must possess relevant prior knowledge for meaningful learning and
that this condition is easily met by age 3 for virtually any domain subject matter.
Students by the fourth grade have an existing knowledge structure of plants. When
students were asked during pre-visit interviews to visualize and name the major parts of a
plant, students were quite capable of the task: “Flower, stern, leaves, and the roots”
“Stem, leaves, ﬂower. I know inside they have the pistil and stuff.” Most students were
capable of identifying several plant parts and some even could name a ﬂower part.

The Seeds of Science curriculum engages students in discovery learning and
through this active, inquiry-based learning, students can incorporate new content and
science phenomena into pre—existing knowledge structures. Pre-visit plant/ﬂower part

maps showed an existing knowledge of plant parts for all students and a range in

78

knowledge of ﬂower parts (Figure 4). Students E, F, and G showed the most knowledge
of ﬂower parts in the pre-visit maps. Meaningful learning involves assimilation of new
concepts into existing cognitive structures (Novak, 1993). Focusing in on the
connections made off of the plant parts concept, students E, F, G, and H have a similar
knowledge structure. In the pre-visit map they identify the individual parts and link them
to the concept plant parts. The post-maps show the same 2-point connections, but the
number of links increases or stays the same. Student I had a different knowledge
structure. He chose to connect individual parts together, essentially building a plant on
the map. The pre- and post-visit maps show the same knowledge structure, but an
increase in links. Therefore, students assimilated new concepts into their pre-existing
cognitive structures.

Knowledge is organized hierarchically in cognitive structures (Novak, 1993).
When individuals learn, they naturally organize new concepts and propositions into a
series of ordered groupings. Wandersee (1990) points out that “concept maps are
designed to parallel human cognitive structure, in that they show concepts organized
hierachically.” When comparing the organization of ﬂower parts on pre- and post-visit
plant/ﬂower maps, students clearly placed new concepts into hierarchies (Figure 4).
Students E, F, G, and H all started with zero speciﬁc connections in the pre- and all 4 in
the post-visit maps. These 4 links show that new knowledge was arranged into organized
groupings. For instance, pistil was connected to both ovary and stigma because the pistil
is made up of those two parts. Likewise, stamen was connected to anther since the anther
is the tip of the stamen. Anther was then connected to pollen because the pollen is

released ﬁ'om the anther. Even with pre-constructed concept maps, students were able to

79

arrange concepts from general to more speciﬁc, showing meaningful relationships
between concepts. Glaser and Bassok (1989) note that one aspect used in deﬁning
competence in a domain is that knowledge is well structured. The grouping of the ﬂower
part concepts in post-maps reﬂects well structured, expert-like organization. Freeman
and Urbaczewski (2003) found that as students progressed throughout the semester, their
concept maps signiﬁcantly increased in size and similarity to the expert’s map, as did the
plant/ﬂower part maps.

Post-visit interviews gave students the opportunity to verbalize why they
connected concepts as they did. Higher-level, 3-point links were clearly explained and it
was evident that students had developed a method of organizing the new material (I ables
12, l3, 14, 15). This display of grouping concepts in ways that are easily retrievable
bears a similarity to the structure of long-term memory (Jonassen, et al., 1993). For
instance, a student explained why she connected pistil to both stigma and ovary: “The
stigma is part of the pistil, which is the female part. The ovary is below the stigma where
the seed is made” (Table 12). A diﬂ‘erent student explained the parts that comprise the
stamen: “The pollen is on top of the anther. The anther is on top of the stamen and the
stamen is male and so is the pollen (Table 13).” Both students have mental maps or ways

of storing concepts in an organized manner, which they verbalized as well as mapped.

Plant Problems
Plant problems concept maps showed signs of arranging concepts in a hierarchy
(Table 16). One student connected plant problems to bugs, which was connected to

aphids, which was linked to plant loses sugar. The student justiﬁed the connection:

80

“Aphids are insects or bugs and the aphids bite the leaf and start to eat the sugar, so the
plant starts to lose its sugar.” When a student creates a visual representation of his/her
cognitive conceptualization, viewers of the map get an inside look into that student’s
mind (Freeman and Urbaczewski, 2003). It is clear based on the students map, as well as
his verbalized response, that he knows that aphids are bugs and that they can harm plants.

He even addressed how the insects are harming the plants.

ANSWERS TO WONDER WALL QUESTIONS

Students were involved in helping answer Wonder Wall questions, which was
followed by a discussion of potential solutions. McNay (1985) stated that “children in
upper elementary grades may be able to suggest possible answers to the questions at
hand. Discussing the merits and likelihood of different hypotheses encourages children
to consider different viewpoints and encourages critical thinking.” Expecting children to
be able to contribute to a discussion encourages and creates conﬁdence in the child’s
authentic intellectual involvement and promotes among children the view that learning is
something in which they themselves play an active role (McNay, 1985). Even if students
were not conﬁdent that they knew the correct answer they hypothesized possible
explanations. Students were able to use the principles they learned in the ﬂower part
curriculum and apply it to a new situation in which they were growing lettuce: “How
does lettuce reproduce?” Students responded: “Lettuce reproduces with its ﬂowers
because it has a pistil.” “Lettuce reproduces by its ﬂowers. All plants reproduce by their
ﬂowers, so the lettuce should” (Table 10). Having never been shown a lettuce ﬂower at

the garden, students took new knowledge learned from various ﬂower part activities and

81

applied it to a slightly different context. Meaningful learning and the creation of
powerful knowledge ﬁameworks permit utilization of the knowledge in new contexts

(N ovak, 1990). Similarly, a different Wonder Wall question was posed: “If four ﬂowers
were planted and only three grew, what could be the cause?” Students responded: “The
other three seeds took all of the water and nutrients.” “The other three plants are taller
than the one and it can’t get enough sun.” Students were taught that plants need water,
nutrients, and sun. They used this knowledge, applied them to a new situation, and made
thoughtful hypotheses.

Another question posed was, “Do all plants need soil and sun?” A student
responded: “No, not all plants need soil such as moss. Moss grows on rocks. All green
plants need sun to live though” (Table 10). The student used his prior knowledge to
respond to the part of the question concerning soil. Students were never introduced to
moss during the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips, so he drew on past observations to arrive at
a reasonable hypothesis. As to whether or not plants need sun, the student associated
green plants with needing sun to survive because green plants have chlorophyll and
therefore go through photosynthesis to make food. It is a powerful answer since he
speciﬁed green plants, as if he questioned whether non-green plants would go through
photosynthesis, in which case sun may not be essential. Different colored plants and their

relationship with photosynthesis had yet to enter his knowledge structure.

Students were able to combine and synthesize information from several sources

and gathered over a period of time to create solutions to new questions and problems.

They were able to structure their knowledge in “expert-like” ways. It would be

82

interesting to follow these students as they continue their science studies to see if the
continue to use these knowledge structures and to see how and why they change over

time.

83

CHAPTER 4
HOW DO SEEDS OF SCIENCE FIELD TRIPS INFLUENCE THE QUESTIONS

STUDENTS ASK?

RESULTS

WONDER WALLS

Students posted many questions to the Wonder Wall while they were on their
ﬁeld trips. For the four schools that used the Wonder Wall, students posted an average of
122 questions per school with a range from 69 to 181 (Tabl'e 17). In addition, students
asked other questions that were not recorded on the Wonder Wall. The types of questions
students asked were 33% basic information and 67% wonderment questions (Table 17).
Basic information questions ranged from 22 to 42% and wonderment questions form 58
to 78%. Basic information questions were those that inquired about speciﬁcs related to
the 4-H Children’s Garden or the people involved with the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips.
The following are examples of such questions: “How many different colors are in the
children’s garden?” “How old are the ferns in this room?” “What is your favorite plant?”
Wonderment questions stemmed from the Seeds of Science curriculum such as: “How
does a plant produce pollen?” “Why do fast plants grow fast?” “How do plant problems
start?”

Table 17. Wonder Wall basic information and wonderment questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School Total # of Questions % Basic Information % Wonderment
A 71 42 58
C 69 28 72
D 169 39 61
E p 181 22 78
Average 122 33 67

 

 

 

 

 

s4

The percentage of questions asked that were basic information and wonderment
remained about the same for each visit (Table 18). The total number of questions per

school was greatest for visits 1 and 2 and decreased by about 45% for visit 3 (data not

 

 

 

 

presented).

Table 18. Types of Wonder Wall questions asked (%) on each Seeds of Science ﬁeld trip.
Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3
Information Wonderment Information Wonderment Information Wonderment
33 67 24 76 33 67

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wonderment questions were further divided into one of four categories:
comprehension, application, analysis, or synthesis. Wonderment questions were 69%
comprehension, 25% application, 5% analysis, and 1% synthesis across all schools (Table
19). A notable difference was that school C asked 16% analysis questions.

Table 19. T of Wonder Wall wonderment questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School # of Question Type (%)
wgsgstetifg Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis
A 41 76 20 2 2
C 50 52 3O 16 2
D 103 76 22 2 0
E 141 71 27 l 1
Average 69 25 5 l

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comprehension questions included the following examples: “How do plants
grow?” “How do trees make ﬁ'uit?” “Why do plants have roots?” Application questions
included: “How come fast plants need C02 instead of 02?” “Why do the plants in the
Mars soil not grow so well?” “How do plants get different genes?” Analysis questions
included: “Why is it that in earth soil plants grew faster, but in Mars soil plants lived
longer?” “Why do tulips close at night and open at daytime?” “How can ﬂowers sense

things like another plant and the temperature if they don’t have brains?” Examples of

85

 

synthesis questions are: “If four ﬂowers were planted and only three grew, what could be

the cause?” and “Does a poinsettia have red chlorophyll?”

INTERVIEWS

Post-visit interviews evoked many great questions that stemmed from the plant
science unit and experiences at the 4-H Children’s Garden. The questions students asked
were ﬁrst divided into basic information and wonderment categories. only one basic
information question was asked while all others were wonderment. There were a total of
28 wonderment questions asked by 11 students. Of these, 11 were comprehension, 16
application and 1 synthesis (Table 20).

Table 20. Types of wonderment questions from student interviews.

 

 

 

 

 

# of Wonderment Question T
Questions Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis
28 11 16 0 l

 

 

 

 

The speciﬁc questions students asked provide valuable insight into the
wonderment and curiosity they had connected to Seeds of Science. Examples of speciﬁc

questions asked during the interviews are presented in Table 21.

Table 21. Questions students asked during post-visit interviews.

 

 

 

 

Question Type Question
Basic info Did the toads come in on their own or did you put them in their?
Comprehension How many types of plants like cactus can live in the desert?

 

 

Do the chives have seedpods or anything?

 

Do toads help theplants at all?

 

Would it (the seed) dry up?

 

How does a plant grow?

 

How did plants start?

 

Are night crawlers bad?

 

How does chlorophyll become that natural substance?

 

How do seeds get made?

 

How high can a plant grow?

 

 

How does carbon dioxide help a plant?

 

86

 

 

Application

Do turtles and other water animals help underwater plants like
worms do?

 

But how does the plant gow (in just water)?

 

When you pluck ﬂowers usually you leave part of the stem on the
ground. Why is there white stuff coming out of it? Is that
chlorophyll or something?

 

Why would they (plants) defend themselves from insects if
insects hﬂ) them pollinate?

 

To make a new plant and seeds like fall onto the ground. I know
they get pushed into the ground by the rain. What if that doesn’t
like happen for hundreds of years? Would the seed die or would
something pick it up and bury it?

 

What makes the ovary grow into the fruit?

 

How does a plant get the energy to make seeds?

 

Some of the peoples cotyledons were green, but some of them
weren’t. Why were some cotyledons brown?

 

If they (plants) didn’t start then we wouldn’t be here right?

 

What happens to the chlorophyll in the fall in the leaves?

 

Why does too much water effect the plant? I know it will drown,
but how will it drown? It needs water.

 

How come the cactus lives in the desert and we have a few plants
that live in the desert? How do they live when they’re not in this
grassy area with water and rain?

 

(Explanation of cactus storing water). So, they are kind of like a
camel?

 

Where are the leaves on a cactus? Are they the spines or spikey
thingies?

 

So the spines are leaves... do they do photosynthesis?

 

When he (a classmate) got his leaf it was a long leaf and now it’s
basically a liquid. How did that happen?

 

 

Synthesis

 

What if a swd like from a regular ﬂower landed in the desert just
for like one day and then it gets picked up by the wind again and
blown into a place where it could grow and then it gets pushed
into the ground, would it still grow?

 

87

 

DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips, held at the 4-H Children’s Garden, give students
many opportunities to wonder. This is partly because the outdoors, in general, provides a
rich environment to wonder and Sparks many great questions from students: “Why aren’t
maple trees tapped in the fall when the sap must be moving down in trees” (McNay,
1985). The 4-H Children’s Garden is ﬁlled with plants that fascinate and delight children.
From watching the leaves of a sensitive plant collapse to using chives as a straw, children
become captivated and intrigued by their surroundings. Secondly, opportunities to
wonder are actively encouraged and modeled as an important part of the Seeds of Science
experience.

Walter E. Massey, president of the National Science Foundation, argued that
museums and informal learning centers can play a large role in nurturing curiosity in
youngsters by creating a sense of wonder that underlies the basis for the desire to learn
and understand (Bresler, 1991). Interactive, hands—on experiences with real objects at
museums and informal learning centers can enhance children’s sense of wonder (Falk, et
al., 1986). Unfortunately, outdoor learning environments have been neglected by
teachers and researchers (Orion and Hofstein, 1994), yet they provide a wealth of
wonderment opportunities. The Seeds of Science location and curriculum give students
the chance to explore, discover, and investigate. Through hands-on activities and

experiments, students have ample opportunity to wonder.

88

Children’s wonderment can be expressed through questioning. Children do not
want to just sit and wait for the world to impinge on them. They try actively to interpret
it, to make sense of it (Donaldson, 1978). In their attempts to make sense of this
mysterious world, student questions must be appreciated, acknowledged, and explored.
McNay (1985) pointed out that not appreciating student questions leads children to
believe that science in school is not meant to answer the questions that really puzzle one.
The wonder questions must be dealt with. Time is allotted during Seeds of Science ﬁeld
trips to sit down and examine Wonder Wall questions. Students and garden experts
discuss potential answers to questions, which show children that their questions are
indeed valued and respected: “We see a need to nurture learners’ natural curiosity by
developing a spirit of inquiry in the classroom: in which questions are respected for
themselves, whether or not we know or can even ﬁnd out the answer” (Fisher, 1990).

The moral of science is clear: keep asking (Hoffmann and Torrence, 1993).
Question generation, an important cognitive strategy, shows what students know about
the content and is a strong indicator as to whether the concepts were understood
(Roshenshire, et al., 1996). Encouraging students to ask questions makes them become
actively involved in their own learning (Marzano, et al., 1988). During Seeds of Science
ﬁeld trips students were encouraged and challenged to generate questions. Many of their
questions were quite thoughtﬁrlz- “What would happen if you take pollen from an apple
and put it on a lily, would you get a new plant?” “Why do two seeds with the same
conditions grow at different rates?” Clearly these two questions show that there is an
understanding of how pollen is involved in reproduction and how seeds can behave

differently.

89

STUDENT GENERATED QUESTIONS

The Wonder Wall provides a comfortable place for children to ﬁeely ask
questions and an opportunity for teachers to go back to students’ questions when there is
time; therefore, showing students that their questions are indeed appreciated and valued.
It is similar to the question board used by Dixon (1995), which enabled children to
express themselves freely and to grow in conﬁdence as questioners, improving their
questioning skills. If given the opportunity to ask questions, students will (Costa, et al.,
2000). However, in a classroom setting some students may often times feel shy asking
questions in front of peers. The Wonder Wall provides a safe, comfortable place for all
students to voice their questions.

The percentage of wonderment questions that students asked on the Wonder
Walls (I able 18) (67%) was quite high relative to previous studies. Chin, et al., 2002
reported that students averaged 14% wonderment questions during the course of ﬁve
diﬂ'erent hands-on activities. A previous study at the 4-H Children’s Garden found that
2'“ and 3'" grade students averaged equal amounts of wonderment and basic information
questions on the Wonder Wall (Driscoll, 2004). Scardamalia and Bereiter (1992) found
that students asked mainly basic information questions for a less familiar topic, but
concentrated on wonderment questions on a more familiar topic. Basic information
questions, which seek factual or procedural knowledge, are of minimal difﬁculty, low-
level questions (Harper, et al., 2003). Basic information questions are often times elicited
in new surroundings, since everything is so unfamiliar. Questions like, “Do you ever eat
from the garden?” “How many plants are here?” “How long did it take to build this

place,” are expected as children become acquainted with their surroundings. The lower

percentage of basic information questions in this study may be because these students
were a bit older than previous studies (4th grade versus 2"" and 3”), because they were
already somewhat familiar with the 4-H Children’s Garden, or because greater emphasis
was placed on asking thoughtﬁrl questions. From the data we cannot separate these
possibilities. Regardless, these 4th grade students asked many wonderment questions
indicating their high level of interest and engagement.

The breakdown between basic information and wonderment questions remained
quite constant across visits (Table 18). The content and activities differ on each ﬁeld trip,
therefore some level of basic information questions is expected since students are
unfamiliar with the new concepts and procedures. There was a decrease in total number
of questions asked for visit 3 and is likely related to the nature of the third visit. Since it
is the ﬁnal visit, everything is being wrapped up and there is less emphasis on writing
questions on the Wonder Wall. School E was also more focused on answering questions
from the Wonder Wall than writing new questions.

Wonderment questions reﬂect curiosity, puzzlement, skepticism, or a knowledge-
based speculation for a more familiar topic (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1992).
Wonderment questions are associated with a deep approach to learning science, whereas
basic information questions are related to a more surface approach (Chin, et al., 2002).
Post-visit interviews elicited 97% wonderment questions because students were at the
end of their plant science unit and had a larger knowledge base to work from (data not
presented).

Wonderment questions were further divided into the following categories

according to Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956): comprehension, application, analysis, and

91

synthesis. Comprehension questions are low-level, which may require some organization
and selection of facts and ideas (Bloom, et al., 1956). Examples of Wonder Wall
comprehension questions include: “Why did the plants grow so fast?” “How do plants
make food?” Application and analysis questions are medium-level questions.
Application questions deal with applying information to a new context or showing
relationships between ideas (Harper, et al., 2003), which include: “Why is chlorophyll
green instead of red?” and “How do plants know when to let go of their seeds?” Analysis
questions require a bit more thought to generate and answer, and are higher up in
Bloom’s taxonomy. Analysis questions include: “Why do tulips close at night and open
at daytime?” and “How come the plants grew so tall in earth soil, but not in Mars soil?”
Synthesis questions are high level questions that combine ideas to make a new whole
(Harper, et al., 2003), and include: “If four ﬂowers were planted and only three grew,
what could be the cause?” and “Does a poinsettia have red chlorophyll?” More than two-
thirds of the Wonder Wall questions were comprehension, whereas over half of the
interview questions were application. These differences may reﬂect students’ greater
understanding. The interview questions were asked at the end of the plant science unit,
so students had a broader knowledge base of plants and could formulate higher order
questions, which require more extensive and elaborate answers. Alternatively, the
answers may reﬂect the method in which the questions were asked. - 0n the Wonder
Wall students wrote what came to mind. In the interviews students were prompted by the
interviewer. There were very few analysis and synthesis questions from either the
Wonder Wall or interviews (Tables 19, 20). This is similar to the small number of

analysis and synthesis questions that students asked in previous studies (Driscoll, 2004).

92

The fact that some higher order thinking questions were asked is exciting and should be

’ explored and encouraged in future Seeds of Science explorations and studies.
Wonderment and learning go hand in hand. Students who are naturally curious

and wonder, are intrinsically motivated to learn (Jenkins, 1969). In elementary school,
concept development is a primary objective in science and curiosity is the motivational
force in children to form concepts (Jenkins, 1969). As students wonder and question they
begin to learn Taba, et al., (1964) found that instructional models that utilized extensive
student questioning had a great impact on their cognitive performance. The questions
raised through interviews (Table 21) showed signs of both wonderment and learning. A
student was curious about cacti and inquired: “Where are the leaves on a cactus? Are
they the spines or spikey thingies?” The student had an idea as to where leaves are
typically found on plants. A cactus however, did not ﬁt perfectly into his knowledge
structure of plants, but he was trying to reformulate his mental network and make
meaning from it. King (1994) stated: “During this meaning-making process, individuals
may draw inferences about the new information, take a new perspective on some aspect
of their existing knowledge, elaborate the new material by adding details, and generate
relationships between the new material and information already in memory.” After a
brief discussion between the student and researcher the student agreed that the spines
must in fact be leaves and asked, “So the spines are leaves... do they do photosynthesis?”
As Shodell (1995) stated, the best thinking comes from the best asking. This is a great
question because the student’s prior knowledge of photosynthetic leaves conﬂicts with
cactus needles. Green leaves, having chlorophyll, are capable of photosynthesis, but

would cactus spines ﬁrnction the same way? Individuals reformulate new information or

93

restructure their existing knowledge and thereby achieve deeper understanding (Brown
and Campione, 1986). Eventually the student comes to the realization that the green
trunk or stem of the cactus is the photosynthetic organ of the plant. Through wonderment
the student broadened his knowledge of plants.

Another example of how wonderment questions can reﬂect student learning is
seen in Wonder Wall questions. A student asked “Why did plants grow so tall in earth
soil, but not in Mars soil?” This question is based on observations made from the
Wonder Cast. Plants were both growing in soil, yet those growing in earth soil out
performed those growing in mars simulated soil. The student recognized that the
growing conditions (light and water) were uniform between treatments, but the soil
differed. At the time the student did not have the knowledge base to understand that the
answer comes down to the properties of the soil and the nutrients it supplies to the plant.
However, a fertilizer experiment, using the same type of plants in the Wonder Cast
showed students ﬁrsthand that plant growth is inﬂuenced by nutrition. Through the
Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips many Wonder Wall questions were answered directly and
many were answered by experimenting and drawing conclusions.

Another question from the Wonder Wall showed a connection between
wonderment and learning: “Does a poinsettia have red chlorophyll?” The student had
been told that the red “ﬂowers” were actually leaves. The student knew that the leaves
do photosynthesis, that photosynthesis involves chlorophyll, and that chlorophyll is
green. Leaves must do photosynthesis and therefore must have chlorophyll. The student
synthesized this information and a red leaf contradicted his existing knowledge structure,

so asking if there is red chlorophyll is a logical, high level wonderment question. The

94

question reﬂects what the student learned and pushed the student to broaden and re-

structure his knowledge.

95

CHAPTER 5
HOW DO POST-FIELD TRIP ACTIVITIES INFLUENCE STUDENTS’

WONDERMENT AND LEARNING?

RESULTS

WONDERMENT
ON-LINE WONDER WALL QUESTIONS
Two schools utilized the on-line wonder wall following post-ﬁeld trip activities.

School C posted entirely wonderment questions, where as school B generated 56%

 

 

 

 

 

wonderment (Table 22).

Table 22. On-line wonder wall basic information and wonderment questions.
School Total # of Questions % Basic Information % Wonderment
C 21 0 100

E 125 44 56

Average 22 78

 

 

 

 

 

The wonderment questions posted on the on-line wonder wall were mainly
comprehension questions (74%) (Figure 6). There were also 21% application question,

while 5% were synthesis. No analysis questions were posted.

STUDENT DESIGNED EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONS

One class from school B was involved with inquiry based, student-designed
experiments. Students came up with their own question and designed an appropriate
experiment to test their personal question. Each student came up with one question, all of
which were wonderment questions. The wonderment questions were 11%

comprehension, 5% application, 11% analysis, and 74% synthesis (Figure 6).

96

Comparing the types of questions students asked on the wonder wall, on-line
wonder wall and as part of student designed experiments, students asked the highest
percentage wonderment questions in student designed experiments with 100% compared
to the wonder wall and on-line wonder wall with 67% and 78% wonderment, respectively
(Figure 5). Student designed experiments also resulted in higher-level question asking
with 74% synthesis compared to the wonder wall at 1% and the on-line wonder wall at
5% (Figure 6). Similarly, the percent of analysis questions was highest in the student
designed experiments, 11%, and the wonder wall and on-line wonder wall at 5% and 0%,

respectively.

97

nae—5.898

35332833 e5 Ebvegoauéooﬁ «ggaoavogmaoﬂoaa ﬂogguﬁeog 33m .n 959..“
8583180

gunning 33 583380 Essie.»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a - m8

o: .. 33,8 .
8e .. 33
888.6% .oz

 

 

 

 

69.68.83-
gut-mu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sue—5.898 .8533 «82.3 23 433 .8263 25.3 2: 6:85 .8283 no cog—8 82326 aneoveokmo BE .0 953m

08.8830
naggingm

  
  

3:3;
I

, . .
. .

 

 

3|me
3733‘s

RIB?
8385 co 62

 

 

 

 

8.2%-
.332-
83.5.-
8186:88-

 

 

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo

99

LEARNDVG

ON-LINE WONDER WALL

Schools C and E utilized the on-line wonder wall as a means of staying connected

to plant experts and scientist at the 4-H Children’s Garden. Chat sessions with students

can be used to pose questions to the students and quickly get a reading of their level of

understanding (Table 23). In addition, student questions and the subsequent

asynchronous communication with an expert can allow and encourage students to

hypothesize or formulate reasonable answers to some of their own questions (Table 24).

It also provides students opportunities to reﬂect on ﬁeld trip experiments and then asking

the next questions that they have.

Table 23. Expert generated questions and student responses from the on-line Wonder

Wall chatroom.

 

Question from expert

Student responses

 

What will happen to a plant if tin foil is
placed over a leaf?

It will die because the leaves need to do
photosynthesis.

It will die because it can’t get any sunlight.

 

 

There was this lady who had an apple
orchard. One day she discovered
something very strange about her apple
blossoms. They were all missing stamens!
Will her trees produce apples?

 

She is not going to get apples because the
stamens produce pollen.

The pollen makes seeds.

The pollen lands on the pistil and the tube
grows down to the ovary and then the
ﬂower is pollinated.

No it won’t. She needs the stamens
because pollination happens when pollen
moves from the stamens to the pistil.

 

100

 

Table 24. Student generated questions and ongoing conversation with an expert on the

on-line Wonder Wall.

 

Student Question or Statement

Expert Response

 

With my lettuce project, my lettuce is
growing very well, but I can’t see the
orange dye in it yet.

Are you testing orange dye in one and just
water in the other? Did you mix water in
with the dye? If you did, you could try
adding less water and more dye this next
time to see if that makes a difference?

 

I’m wondering why me lettuce (ﬁ'eckles) is
growing sideways? Is that a good thing?

I got your answer about my lettuce
(freckles) growing sideways. Yes it is by a
window. I think it might be good because
when we were growing lettuce at the MSU
gardens freckles was growing sideways just
the same as it is doing now.

Hmmmm.... Is your cup of lettuce by a
window? If so, do the leaves seem to be
heading in that direction (toward the
window)? Ifthat is the case, perhaps you
could hypothesize why freckles is growing
sideways. What do you think?

So, why do you think that the leaves might
be growing toward the window? Think
about what the leaves for the plant and why
that window is so important. Pm excited to
hear your thoughts! This is fun!

 

Why do pansies have blue pollen?

I got your answer on my blue pollen
question. I’m not sure why either, but I
think it might be because the ﬂower is such
a strong color (blue/purple). P.S. Please
write back with your guess.

You know that's a great question. I have
asked that myself before and I am just not
sure. I could come up with a hypothesis,
but I'd like to hear your guesses ﬁrst. Why
do you think they have blue pollen?

0k, you know how chlorophyll is a
pigment that is found in leaves. Well, we
know that chlorophyll gives leaves their
great green color. There are all kinds of
different pigments with crazy names.
There are a group of pigments called
anthocyanins that could be responsible for
making that pollen blue. Why in those
pansies (or were they petunias) that you
were observing... I'm still not sure. What
advantage might the petunia have if its
pollen is blue and not yellow? Any
thoughts?

 

 

Try putting lemonade and pop in two
different cups with seeds. Ifyou ﬁnd out
which grows better, tell me.

 

I don't have lemonade. Why don‘t you give
it a shot and report back to me. Be sure to
make a hypothesis ﬁrst!

 

101

 

LAB REPORT

Schools B, D, and B were involved in post-visit activities with a garden expert.
The lettuce experiment was ﬁnished with a ﬁnal data collection and lab report. Students
were asked: “Based on the data you have collected and the graphs that you have created,
what is the best lettuce cultivar that other students would love eating in their school
lunches? Why is it the best? Think about height, leaf characteristics and taste.” Select

responses with corresponding data are presented in Table 25.

102

Table 25. lettuce experiment “best” cultivar selection Images are that of student work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data
TasteEvaluation
5
on 4 T
.g . - .
52 3‘ . ”iii?
’8 2', . , :4;
E 1, Eli-l III! '
,_ All. . .m-
Dano Mixuna Tango 1. Red
- ' ' LettuceCultivar
Leavaaluation
a) 5
t8 '3 ~'
8 ' .
2 a
. 0 _ .2
Response

 

IthinkArugulaisthebestbecauseintasteIthinkIwouldgiveitaSand
in appearance probably a 4. It is 5 inches and that is tall.

 

103

 

Table 25 continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data
Arugula
7
B ._._
:A
£5 ‘
all
'33 7
'82
1 O l
o 'L11'1:l:I+1#l%l;l‘l:Ja%j_:l%l:rl:l:l#l:1:1:lﬁ'nglﬁlrl4—I
12 3 4 5 6 7 a 91011121314151617181920212223
DaysAﬁerSowingSeeds '
Freckles
7
6 —>
as /’
.54 /
é /
:33
.52 /
m /
1 e .
o 1%]:11'L# Illrlﬁl'lA:I+I#J:I%I+LII:J:L:L‘LI:l1r41%l
1 2 3 4 5 a 7 a 91011121314151617181920212223
Days After Sowing Seeds
Response
Ithink you should pick Freckles because it is the tallest, great shape,
exciting, and great taste.

 

104

 

 

Table 25 continued.

 

 
 
  
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data
1mm 7 , .
I F-o-m . mm- 3.1“: baa. S-Anguh G-Pruﬂl
[£12122 I?“ Ll 31A 4m, EU“ 2'17“.
amt-rm .
hhubkbahwem _ .. Montana-INN ”a
mimosa-char .. mmhammumum
tImJS’soryounny ' . .... . -
l-Unccqitabb. «Mindy-corded.
Z’M-m cvnu
3-Aw- ' council“, . Him.
4—oood-Lar ballad podeobrddma
s—om- hm mw'muﬂmm
l—D-n Z-rhn tS-T-m 4.4m m m
s _ - M " i
'w g 2‘ 4 - 5‘ \
3.1mm _
Tuneupoahuofahfh 'hammdﬂbhmw
l-W— III-low!
z-Bud
3—Aw
4—Oood
s-o-uuhg—Y gunman
AmanﬂCMoSh
l li-E 24M:— Juno 4-MI5-m m
Lr~-[‘L “0| ‘ 72%/51;
, _ . , ‘ V2 7
7 t \\ .4 to F1. 3
Response
Mizuna is the best because all of the ratings added up to make it the best.

 

 

 

 

105

DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

Post-visit activities were designed to reinforce what was learned on Seeds of
Science ﬁeld trips including science content and asking questions. The inﬂuence of post-
visit activities in the classroom on subsequent learning and knowledge construction has
largely been neglected by researchers in the past (Anderson, et al., 2000). Through use of
the on-line Wonder Wall, student designed experiments, and the lettuce growth and
evaluation lab report, students were immersed in hands-on, minds-on activities that all

happened post-visit and required continued thinking and wonderment in plant science.

WONDER
ON-LINE WONDER WALL

The on-line Wonder Wall provides students with a place to voice their
wonderment, note observations, ask questions and seek answers. Isaacs (1930) viewed
the child’s own question as a prized object that should be at the center of the curriculum.
By having experts respond to questions posted to the on-line Wonder Wall, students
know that their questions are important, valued, and “prized objects.” Encouraging and
emphasizing question-asking better exposes students to the fundamental inquiry nature of
science (Marbach-Ad and Sokolove, 2000). Thus the on-line Wonder Wall actively
encourages students to ask and think, to do science on their own.

As students continue to explore and question, they will need help in seeking some

answers (McNay, 1985). The on-line Wonder Wall provides a way for experts to answer

106

questions post-ﬁeld trip, thus allowing continued inquiries in plant science. Chin and Li-
Gek (2004) point out that “students are sometimes puzzled or intrigued by observations
and events in their lives beyond school and have questions pertaining to these.” The on-
line Wonder Wall is an outlet for student curiosity. Students can continue to question
natural phenomena that they have personally experienced or observed and via the on-line
Wonder Wall ﬁnd answers.

Out of all the questions posted to the on-line Wonder Wall, 78% were
wonderment questions (Table 22), a similar percentage as questions posted on the
Wonder Wall in the garden and as questions asked in the interviews. Wonderment
questions were largely comprehension, 74% (Figure 6) (Bloom, et al., 1956). These
questions included: “What was the last plant found?” and “Why do plants produce
oxygen?” Another 21% of the wonderment questions, were application questions
including: “Why do pine trees keep their needles and why don’t they change?” and “How
do roots grow out of the seeds hard covering?” Few synthesis questions were posted,
only 5% and included: “How does food coloring in the water for spinach effect the color
of the spinach and growth?” and “How long does it take to grow lettuce by a tree
blocking it? Will it survive? Or will it live, but not perfect?” The on-line Wonder Wall
provided yet another opportunity for students to express their wonderment in the form of

questions.

STUDENT DESIGNED EXPERIMENTS
Teachers who practice inquiry-based education encourage their students to

wonder by pushing them to ask questions that are personally meaningful and interesting

107

(DuVall, 2001b). Students feel as if they are doing ‘real’ science and take ownership of
the problems when they pursue answers to questions which they ﬁnd meaningful (Chin
and Li-Gek, 2004). What may start off as a wonderment question can quickly turn into
learning: Learning is based on what the students are interested in and driven by students’
need to answer their own questions (Chin and Li-Gek, 2004). Falk (2004) stated that
“learning is inﬂuenced by an individual’s desire to choose and control his/her own
learning.” Through inquiry-based experiments students can explore their own
wonderment questions and therefore, they can essentially control their own learning.
Inquiry learning seeks to excite curiosity in students, encouraging them to investigate
questions on their own initiative and grounding this activity in authentic situations (Byers
and Fitzgerald, 2002).

Chin, et al., (2002) noted that “allowing students to generate their own
investigation questions stimulated curiosity and encouraged profound thinking about
relationships among questions, tests, evidence, and conclusions.” Pupils should ask
questions related to their work in science and turn their own ideas into a form that can be
investigated (DE, 1995). However, Dixon (1996) noted that very few student questions
are suitable for testing. Enquiries that lead to investigations are often more difﬁcult to
stimulate (Dixon, 1996). This was true in the Seeds of Science student-designed
experiments. Although students came up with their own testable question, many of their
initial questions were not testable. This is clear by looking at the types of questions
asked on the Wonder Wall (Figures 5,6), which were largely basic information questions
plus comprehension and application wonderment questions. Garden experts worked with

students and challenged them to think of a question that could turn into a scientiﬁc

108

investigation. Students were told to think about a question that they wanted answered,
which “engages students in formulating questions, supporting the notion that inquiry and
investigation need to be based on student curiosity and interest” (Long, et al., 2004).
Many of the children were capable of the task and asked questions that could lead to an
investigation.

The questions students asked when developing their own experiment were all
wonderment questions (Figure 5). This is a much greater percentage than when students
asked questions using the Wonder Wall (67%) or the on-line Wonder Wall (7 8%). This
in part is the result of experts pushing students to come up with testable questions, which
forced students to think beyond low-level, basic information questions. Nearly three
quarters of the questions students asked for their personal experiments were synthesis
questions, which is a substantially greater percentage than questions generated from the
ﬁeld trip Wonder Walls and the on-line Wonder Wall (Figure 6). Again this may be due
to experts encouraging the students to think and plan beyond what is right in front of
them. These types of inquiry-based experiments begin with student wonderment, push
students to question at a higher level, and solve their own problems through active
exploration, discovery and reﬂection (Latham, 1996). Kleinman (1965) found that
science instruction that utilized higher level questioning, resulted in greater scientiﬁc
achievement of students.

During an interview a student commented that her lettuce, from her personal
experiment, was not growing well. The question she was asking in her experiment was:
“What would grow if one was in a cupboard and one in the freezer?” When asked why

they were not growing well the student responded: “I think one of the reasons why is

109

because they are not getting enough sunlight.” She was able to draw conclusions based
on her own observations. What started out as a seed of wonderment became a learning
experience. Even though she has likely heard that plants need light to grow, she saw ﬁrst
hand that their survival is dependent on it. Inquiry privileges students’ natural questions,

which become the center of their own learning experiences (Commeyras, 1995).

LEARNING
ON-LINE WONDER WALL

The on-line Wonder Wall can help students learn content in at least two different
ways. First, synchronous chat sessions between experts and students can reinforce
science material that was learned on ﬁeld trips. During one chat students were asked
“What will happen to a plant if tin foil is placed over a leaf” (Table 23). This question
was never raised during any of the ﬁeld trips, but it required students to tap into their
plant science knowledge and hypothesize potential outcomes. Students had to recall the
function of leaves and therefore hypothesized that either the plant or leaf would die since
“the leaves need to do photosynthesis” and “it can’t get sunlight.” Students’ plant
science knowledge was ﬂirther probed by asking them if apple blossoms without stamens
would be capable of producing fruit. Students recalled propositions, linking concepts like
stamen and pollen together: “She is not going to get apples because the stamens produce
pollen.” Students acknowledged that without pollen fruit set would not occur. Chatting
with students on-line is a way of maintaining connections with students between ﬁeld

trips or upon completion of Seeds of Science. Conversations challenge students to recall

110

information learned during their plant science unit, which reinforces existing cognitive
schemas.

The on-line Wonder Wall further stimulates learning by engaging students
asynchronously through question asking and expert responses. Students’ questions can
be used to direct their inquiry and guide construction of lmowledge (Chin, et al., 2002).
Students’ questions are addressed in one of two ways. Basic information questions and
lower level questions are often times answered directly. Thought provoking questions
allow the expert to offer guidance to the student, leading him/her to the answer. For
instance, a student inquired as to why her lettuce was growing sideways, to which the
expert responded “Is your cup of lettuce by a window? If so, do the leaves seem to be
heading in that direction (toward the window)? If that is the case perhaps you could
hypothesize why Freckles is growing sideways” (Table 24). The expert’s role was to
lead the student to the answer, so she could discover herself. McNay (1985) pointed out
that “some of the best questions in science are those children can answer through their
own activity - observing, measuring and experimenting for themselves, and ﬁnding out
through a discovery process.” Weber (1971) stated that a child must ﬁnd a solution for
the problem he was searching to understand, a solution that makes sense of the
observations he has made. The on-line Wonder Wall provides an outstanding tool to
carry on these conversations, direct inquiry and facilitate wonder and discovery. In

addition, it is fun to use.

111

LAB REPORT

The lettuce lab report was intended to embody the scientiﬁc method, giving
students ﬁrsthand experience with each step of the process. The investigations required
them to develop hypotheses, collect data, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Students
did the lettuce experiment to answer the driving question: “Which lettuce cultivar would
be the best to grow and eat for 4“1 grade school lunches?” Metz (1995) presented a strong
argument that elementary students are capable of performing investigations and learning
from them, even though, due to limited prior knowledge, their investigations will be less
sophisticated than those of adolescents and adults. This experiment actively engaged
students in collecting and analyzing data (height, color, taste) over time, in order to
identify the “best” lettuce cultivar. As expected, the “best” varied among students, but
their rationale for choosing a particular cultivar was fairly consistent and was based on
the data they ind collected and analyzed. Student bar and line graphs aided them in
determining the “best” lettuce. One student creatively tallied up the numbers ascribed to
each cultivar on the ﬁnal data collection to see which scored the highest overall when it
came to height, leaf and taste evaluations (Table 25). Other students based their
determination of “best” based on a single characteristic that was most important to them.
They were exposed to the concept that there may be more than one “best” cultivar
depending on the criteria used in the evaluation. During an interview about the lettuce
experiment, one student stated: “I learned that lettuce leaves can look different. They can
be different colors: green, red, and pale green. The edging of the leaves, some are round
like clovers and some are spiky. How they feel — some of them feel soft, some of them

feel rough, some of them feel smooth.” For these students, this was a unique experience

112

that we hope will inﬂuence their understanding of science and their attitude toward
science for years to come.

Upon completion of the lab report and time permitting, students were encouraged
to ask a new scientiﬁc question. They were asked to voice their thoughts as to what the
next investigation should be, therefore reinforcing the idea that the science process is
ongoing. There are always more questions to ask and more experiments to design. As
McNay (1985) stated: “Science is, aﬁer all, not the acquisition of right answers but the
growth of understanding; and children learn something valuable when they sense that in
science there is always more to discover.” Based on these students’ new questions we
expect to see experiments examining, “What would happen if you put 7 drops of red dye
in the water, would the leaves turn red?” and the effects of placing “2 fertilizer pellets on
the bottom in one and 2 fertilizer pellets on the top in the other one.” And best of all,
these students are excited about carrying out these experiments and conﬁdent, based on

their experiences with Seeds of Science, that they can carry them out.

113

CONCLUSIONS
Hypotheses

Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips and subsequent post-visit activities had marked impacts
on student learning and knowledge structure, wonderment, and the questions students
asked.

Hypothesis 1 stated that students’ post-visit knowledge of plant science will be
greater than students’ pre-visit plant science knowledge. The hypothesis is supported for
all schools in science process except for school D, and is further supported since all
schools showed signiﬁcant differences in plant and ﬂower parts total scores. Students
also broadened their knowledge of plant problems, identifying signiﬁcantly more
concepts in the following categories: insect and disease, symptoms, and treatments.
These categories are speciﬁc to the Seeds of Science curriculum and are a direct
reﬂection on the program.

Hypothesis 2 stated that students’ post-visit concept maps will be more similar to the
expert map, in terms of concept organization and number of valid links, compared to
students’ pre-visit maps. Hypothesis 2 was supported for all schools in science process
speciﬁc connections, except for school A, which was not involved in post-ﬁeld trip
follow up. This reﬂects the importance of post-ﬁeld trip activities, which reinforce and
elaborate on concepts learned during the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips. School D showed a
high level of science process knowledge prior to the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips, and
although there was not a signiﬁcant increase in knowledge, students did show a
signiﬁcant increase in science process speciﬁc connections. This indicates that students

restructured the knowledge into a more expert-like schema. The hypothesis is further

114

supported since ﬁve of the six schools showed a signiﬁcant increase in plant and ﬂower
parts speciﬁc connections. The only school that did not show signiﬁcant increases did
not experience the complete ﬂower part curriculum at the 4-H Children’s Garden.

Hypothesis 3 stated that students will express basic information questions and
wonderment questions relatively equally during the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips.
Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Two thirds of the questions asked during the ﬁeld trips
were wonderment questions. In previous studies in the 4-H Children’s Garden 50% of
the questions were wonderment. It is not clear why there was this increase in
wonderment questions, but it is exciting to note that 4'11 grade students ask such a high
percentage of higher order, thinking questions.

Hypothesis 4 stated that students engaged in post-ﬁeld trip activities will have a
greater change in science process knowledge compared to those students who did no
follow up. Hypothesis 4 was supported since those schools who participated in post-visit
activities showed a signiﬁcant difference in science process speciﬁc connections, and the
only school not involved in post-visit activities did not.

Hypothesis 5 stated that students will express more wonderment questions in post-
visit activities than during the course of the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips. Hypothesis 5
was supported. Students expressed the highest percent wonderment with student
designed experiments followed by the on-line Wonder Wall, both of which were

implemented during post-visit activities.

115

Seeds of Science Stimulates Wonder

Children love exploring and making discoveries. Children come to know the
world at large via wonder (Cobb, 1977). Field trips in general stimulate wonderment by
being in a new setting, leaving the conﬁnes of the traditional classroom. The 4-H
Children’s Garden provides an environment conducive to exploration, allowing children
to imagine, wonder, and be curious. Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips encourage student
wonderment by giving students time to make detailed observations and reﬂect on their
ﬁndings. Two-thirds of the questions posted to the Wonder-Wall were wonderment

questions, which is a remarkable amount and is an indication of student wonderment.

Seeds of Science Stimulates Learning

In addition to stimulating wonderment, ﬁeld trips also stimulate student learning.
Field trips provide opportunities to illustrate and reinforce concepts (Keown, 1984).
Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips, being integrated and spread out through the course of
students’ plant science unit, provide a way of either establishing the foundation for new
concepts or reinforcing concepts that have already been introduced in the classroom
Since Seeds of Science is centered at the 4-H Children’ s Garden, concept development is
largely driven by students’ experiences in the outdoor environment.

Knapp (2000) indicated that one primary outcome of the ﬁeld trip experience is
retention of knowledge. Seeds of Science curriculum is largely comprised of hands-on
activities and explorations. When students are actively engaged in hands-on activities,
they are more apt to associate the concepts with the experience, thus recalling the

information more readily. As new information is learned and processed students

116

assimilate the information into existing mental schemas: “Individuals may draw
inferences about the new information, take a new perspective on some aspect of their
existing knowledge, elaborate the new material by adding details, and generate
relationships between the new material and information already, in memory” (King,
1994). Organization of information inﬂuences learning. (W einstein and Mayer, 1986).
Students showed a gain and restructuring of knowledge through the Seeds of
Science program. Plant science knowledge was fairly limited and unstructured in pre-
visit concept maps, but post-visit maps were much more sophisticated. Crandell, et al.,
(1996) stated that “in the beginning, or when information is incomplete, [young children]
may construct naive explanations. These explanations may be revised, and they can
become much more sophisticated as the learning process proceeds.” Post-visit maps
were more similar to the expert map. Relationships became more complex and intricate

in the post—visit maps, similar to changes noted by Freeman and Urbaczewski (2003).

Wonder Stimulates Learning

Plato stated that the origin of knowledge emerges from a child’s sense of wonder
(cited in Nikola-Lisa, 1988). Wonder leads to learning. Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips and
post-visit activities encourage wonderment and therefore offer the foundation for
learning. The Wonder Wall used during ﬁeld trips, the on-line Wonder Wall, and student
designed experiments all provided means for studmts to express their wonderment
questions. Questioning, a sign of student wonderment, is also known to have many
positive effects on student learning, comprehension, and knowledge (Costa, et al., 2000).

Yolen (1981) noted that wonderment is the beginning of understanding. Through the

117

course of the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips, garden experts worked to stimulate curiosity
and wonderment amongst students, ultimately leading them to draw their own
conclusions and answer some of their own questions. Seeds of Science activities

' provided numerous opportunities for students to take an active role in their own learning.
Garden experts provided the necessary scaffolding to encourage student questioning. In

this way students’ curiosity could lead to learning.

Future Studies

To ﬁrrther our understanding of how Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips and post-visit
activities impact student learning and wonderment future studies are necessary. Several
aspects of Seeds of Science should be studied further. First, additional work should be
done to study how teachers deal with wonderment questions pre- and post-Seeds of
Science. This would provide insight into how students’ questions are handled throughout
the entirety of the plant science unit versus just at the 4-H Children’s Garden. Students’
questions need to be continuously valued. Garden experts need to help teachers in
promoting wonder and curiosity in the classroom.

Second, additional investigation of the on-line Wonder Wall as a tool to promote
student questioning between and after Seeds of Science ﬁeld trips is needed. The on-line
Wonder Wall has the potential to actively engage students both in and out of the
classroom, linking them directly to scientists and other experts. The impact of experts
promptly answering students’ questions and encouraging them to ask more should be
studied to determine the effects on students’ willingness to ask questions and on the type

of question they ask.

118

Third, inquiry-based, student designed experiments need to be tested on a larger
scale and followed through to completion. Will students be able to make observations,
collect data, and answer their own research question? Can students effectively carry their
experiments out using the on-line Wonder Wall as a resource for answers and guidance?
Implementing student designed experiments in the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trip curriculum
may offer students the conﬁdence to see sub sequent inquiry experiments through to the

end.

119

APPENDIX A
Fast Plants Wondercast
Scientiﬁc name: Brassica rapa

Explore the fast plants Wondercast. Watch how the plants grow and ﬂower. When you
have explored the Wondercast answer these questions:

1. What was the ﬁrst day of the Wondercast?

2. What was the last day of the Wondercast?

3. How tall were the plants growing in earth soil on 10/15/02?

4. What date can you see the ﬁrst ﬂower?

5. How much did the earth soil plants grow between 10/10/02 and 10/17/02?

6. What questions about Fast Plant grth do you have after exploring the Wondercast?

120

APPENDIX B

Fast Plants
Fertilizer Experiment

Name: Date:

 

 

Coaect data:

Your experiment — Amount of fertilizer:

 

 

Days after seeding:

Number of seeds germinated:

 

Plant height: cm

Notes:

 

 

 

 

 

Name: Date:

 

 

Coaxtdata:

Your experiment - Amount of fertilizer:

 

Days after seeding:

 

Number of seeds germinated:

 

Plant height: cm

 

Notes:

 

 

 

 

 

121

APPENDIX C

Lettuce Growth and Evaluation Experiment
Introduction and Experimental Design

. ASK A QUESTION:
Is there a lettuce cultivar that 4th graders will think is the best to grow and eat for
school lunches?

. RESEARCH

a. There are many different lettuce cultivars

b. There are differences in what lettuce cultivars are used for

c. Different lettuce cultivars have differences in the leaves — color, leaf margin
(edge of the leaf), and other differences

. HYPOTHESIS:

I predict that all the lettuce cultivars (circle one) will will not grow the
same and will taste the same.

. DESIGN EXPERIMENT:

a. We will plant 6 lettuce cultivars
0 One - Dano

Two - Mizuna
Three - Tango
Four - Integrata Red
Five - Arugula

0 Six - Freckles
All cultivars will be planted in growing cells.
Soil — greenhouse soil mix
Fertilizer — none
Watering — uniform
Growing conditions — under ﬂuorescent lights

mop-99‘

These are the lettuce characteristics that we should measure.

 

 

 

122

APPENDIX D

Lettuce Growth and Evaluation Experiment
Data Collection

1. Record plant height

Date

 

 

l
Dano

Mizuna

Tango

Arugula

Freckles

 

 

Plant
Height
ches)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. LeafData

 

Dano

Mizuna

Tango

I. Red

Arugula

Freckles

 

Describe the
leaf edge

 

Sketch leaf

 

Color(s)

 

 

Other
observations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123

 

 

APPENDIX E

Lettuce Growth and Evaluation Experiment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Data Collection
Date
1. Record plant height
1 2 3 4 5 6
Dano Mizuna Tango 1. Red Arugula Freckles
Plant
Height
(Inches)
2. Leaf Data
1 2 3 4 5 6
Dano Mizuna Tango 1. Red Arugula Freckles
Describe the
leaf edge
Color(s)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Overall Leavaaluation

In the table below evaluate each of the lettuce cultivars on their overall leaf appearance.
Assign a number 1-5 for each of the cultivars. You may think all six cf the cultivars are
outstanding and give them all 5’s or you may assign a range of numbers.

1 — Unacceptable. Leaves brown, shriveled, close to dying or dead

2 — Poor. Leaves have some dead/brown spots
3 - Average. Typical color, texture and leaf shape
4 — Good. Leaf appears healthy and has good color and shape

5 - Outstanding. Leafis striking with fantastic color and unusual, appealing shape

 

l
Dano

2
Mizuna

3 ,
Tango

4
1. Red

5
Arugula

6

Freckles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124

 

 

 

 

2. Taste Evaluation

Taste a portion of a leaf for each cultivar and assign them a number according to the
following scale:

1 — Unacceptable. Disgusting! You can’t hardly swallow it!

2 - Poor. You are pretty tough to taste it, but you won’t eat it again!

3 - Average. Not bad, not great, either.

4 — Good. Its. . . good, you could eat this again (maybe with a little ranch dressing)
5 - Outstanding. You just LOVE the ﬂavor and will eat it at any opportunity!

Assign a number 1-5 for each of the lettuces below.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6
Dane Mizuna Tango I. Red Arugula Freckles

 

Taste
Rating

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

APPENDIX F

‘n‘

7 Lettuce Growth and Evaluation Report V

When carrying out a scientiﬁc investigation, a scientist must go through the steps of the
scientiﬁc process. The lettuce experiment is a great example of a scientiﬁc investigation
and you as a scientist need to report back on your ﬁndings.

   

1. Ask a question

What question did you ask to start this experiment?

 

 

2. Research

People, the intemet, and books/magazines can be used to get more information on a topic.
- Miss Kelli offered some information on her experiences growing and tasting
lettuce.
- We looked at the Johnny’s Selected Seeds Catalog, which had pictures of many
different types of lettuce.

3. Hypothesis

What was your educated guess as to how the lettuces would look, grow, and taste?

 

 

126

4. Design an experiment

What did you do to set up your experiment? Be sure to list everything so that someone
else could read this and do your experiment. This is called a procedure.

1.

 

2.

 

 

 

 

5. Collect Data

You collected data at three different times.
May 10‘”, At the Children’s Garden - Height measurements, leaf sketches, etc.
May 21“, In class - Height measurements, leaf sketches, etc.
May 26'”, In class — Height measurements, leaf and taste evaluations

*Please attach all 3 data sheets to the report.

6. Explain Data

Use the data you have collected to create some graphs below. The following dates are
important:

May 4'h — Sowed lettuce seeds at the Children’s Garden

May 10'”, 6 days after planting - lIll data collection at the Children’s Garden
May 21”, 17 days after planting — 2”“ data collection in class

May 26’”, 22 days after planting — 3'“ data collection in class

127

Line graph example.

 

Dano

l

 

/
/

/

lLJIILJJIIIIllllllllllLlJILIIIJIIILIIIIILiJ
I11 I 1 IT r11 r r

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223
DaysAﬂaerSowingSeeds

Height (Inches)

 

o—snwhmau
\

 

 

 

Figure 1. Height of Dano lettuce from planting to _ days after planting.

Create your own line graphs below using the data you have collected.
See the 1“, 2"“, and ﬁnal “Lettuce Experiment Data Collection” sheet, #1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dano
7
6
:5
5
£4
£3
'92
£
1
O ilrlt‘t—ULﬁ4Lelslierlter'ﬁl':':J:1+'¢1:'t'titlt‘
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617181920212223
Days After Sowing Seeds

 

 

 

Figure 2. Height of Dano lettuce from planting to _ days after planting.

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Helght (Inches)

 

O-KNw-hU'lO’N

 

 

41 lrlrlnlrlmlajaiLJLlrl111141rIrlaLrJ [LII—ILJ
r r r r r 1 1w 1 v I rTT

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617181920212223
DaysNterSowlngSeeds

 

Figure 3. Height of Mizuna lettuce from planting to _ days after planting.

 

Tango

 

 

 

 

Helghtﬂnches)
N co h 0| 0) \l

(3.x

 

 

 

 

 

LJL;1414_14J1111llrLrlrlrlrl rrrrr
T I I I I I II

411111111
f1 Tﬁ

j I T I I

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617181920212223
DaysAfterSowingSeeds

 

Figure 4. Height of Tango lettuce ﬁ'om planting to _ days after planting.

129

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IntegrataRed
7
6
“5
3.
£3
.9
£2
1
0 +‘r‘elslrlf4':‘rlt'4Ls'r'4i41:':'+L:‘+1:':‘:‘t'
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617181920212223
DaysMerSowlngSeeds

 

Figure 5. Height of Integrata Red lettuce ﬁ'om planting to _ days after planting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arugula

7
6
£5
E4
E3
.9
£2
1

0 +1%1%L%1+1111+4H:r%1:1:r:r:r:r:r§r:r:r:r§r%rlmn

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617181920212223

Days After Sowing Seeds

 

Figure 6. Height of Arugual lettuce from planting to _ days after planting.

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freckles

7
6
“‘5
g.
£3
£2
1

o 4L4%1+1ﬁ*1‘1+1‘1+'4't':‘:‘:‘s'titlslt':l+1:1eJ

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617181920212223

DaysﬂterSoMngSeeds

 

Figure 7. Height of Freckles lettuce from planting to _ days after planting.

131

 

Leaf evaluation - bar graph example

 

Leaf Evaluation

 

.h

 

 

0°

 

Appearnce Rating
N

A

 

 

 

0

Dana Mizuna Tango Integrata Arugula Freckles
Red

Lettuce Cultivar

 

 

 

Figure 8. Evaluation of leaf appearance for six lettuce cultivars, _ days after seeding.

Use your data to make a bar graph below.
See “Lettuce Experiment Final Data Collection”sheet, #3.

 

Leaf Evaluation

 

5
.E' 4
72'

3
E
a 2
i
< 1

0

Dara Mizuna Tango Integrata Arugula Freckles
Red
Lettuce Cultivar

 

 

 

Figure 9. Evaluation of leaf appearance for six lettuce cultivars, _ days after seeding.

132

Taste evaluation - bar graph example

 

Taste Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g
s
.2
Dana Mizuna Tango Integrata Arugula Freckles
Red
Lettuce Culﬁvar

 

 

Figure 10. Taste evaluation of six lettuce cultivars, __ days after seeding.

Use your data to make a bar graph below.
See “Lettuce Experiment Final Data Collection” sheet, #4.

 

 

Taste Evaluation

 

 

 

 

Taste Rating

 

 

 

Dmo Mizuna Tango Integrata Arugula Freckles
Red

Lettuce Cultivar

 

 

 

 

Figure 10. Taste evaluation of six lettuce cultivars, _ days after swding.

133

How are the lettuces the same and how are they different?

 

 

Based on the data you have collected and the graphs that you have created, what is the
best lettuce cultivar that other students would love eating in their school lunches? Why is
it the best? Think about height, leaf characteristics and taste.

 

 

 

 

7. Ask a new question

What question would you like to test next?

 

 

134

OPTIONAL

 

Research

What would you need to ﬁnd out?

 

 

Hypothesis

What is your educated guess to your new question?

 

 

Design an experiment
List the steps involved in setting up your new experiment.

1.

 

2.

 

 

 

 

135

APPENDIX G
Student Designed Experiment
The science process continues. What should the next experiment be?
Ask a new question

What question would you like to test next?

 

 

Research

What would you need to ﬁnd out?

 

 

Hypothesis

What is your educated guess to your new question?

 

 

Design an experiment
List the steps involved in setting up your new experiment. (Procedure)

1.

 

2.

 

 

 

 

136

APPENDIX H

 

 

 

 

 

Flower Dissection
Flower #1 Flower #2
Petals
Stamens
(Male)
Pistils
(Female)

 

 

 

137

 

APPENDIX I

Plant Problems

Sketch and describe two plant problems below. Be sure to use a lot of details.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

138

APPENDIX J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept Maps
Science Process
Internet,
bOOkS, people Step by step
Research procedure
Ask a Hypothesis
question
Science Your best
Process guess
Explain data Design an
experiment
Collect data
Charts with Take
Graph numbers pictures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

 

Figure 4 continued.

 

1 Student

Pre-Visit Map

Post-Visit Map

 

l

 

 

 
   

 
 

I‘l‘Innm Mow-a whlll
up In» pin"!

 

Anihmr
yum

    
 
         

 
 
 

l'u-lnh

 

Cm‘m-ni‘. war. so lmm-n,
Hows-rs. ll. lluil

   

Xylr-m Mam lune laugh”
throughout plum

     
 
  

  

ilallmn

 

Found hum»
or "n lrulr

 
 
  
  

Aiiuvmv. ”alum”...
I and |ll4llh

 

l. .. .e

  

mm.

   
  
   
   

Ilh'rw- mum-Hm. L
Wﬁh'l from I011
Laura-nun.

 
 

N-‘ll‘ plum “mm l-mruynlhnu
up wslqm

 
 
 
  
  

f.
Klinnlh
r...” wnlmm in

make plan! lma AW

  

 
  
  
 

Alumni:-

Gun-n
wuuwm ,mm

 
 
   

‘. Prawn. Ilmr nuns pltml
. Chlsreyhyu loo-i in rhn Dorm cl suuw
mpmw-d envy J,“ 1 .

 

. :rmumv

 

 

  

. Mun- water
‘ Fluwnr up the plant
l

   

Cannon: mate to Innvps,
”0

i
‘ ways, s lrull

 

Alumna pulllnnluu
like Iwas nmr blur-

 

 

l
., nrllwa "1|"!!an A.
, wmrlmmwll

    

unll'lrl to
plant load

 

   
  

   
  

 

 

Shiurcpllyll

 

  

l‘

Rlymlmd uvnry

 
 

   

       
      
  
    
    
  

 

   

Frances (lull mnkos plan!
‘ land In the term or sugar

 

61

 

 

 

 

Plant Problems

Plant Problems

141

Science Process

 

Internet, .
books
people
.\ -_-
‘ Ask a
I_ question
i
g
g
g
r_.-_____..__.._.._-_ L. -__.._--

3 Explain Data ,

 

l
— \.1' ‘ fi“.‘-- ~l
|
l
l.—

APPENDIX K

Concept Map Expert Rubrics

Step by
‘ step
g procedure

Research i

i‘ 9: Hypothesis

-- i. _ -_- __

Science

 

Process pies” l
l .
—— — 5
..w"
5” L-r_. ___ ;. "..----- _ ___
1 Design an i
..I experin'lent I
; Collect Data
___ _ --. ---.-.. 3—points
2-points
.— ..___.__. _-‘ —‘—' " —_‘ ’—” ..__._-.____. ”""“_"l .
. - . . *—-> _
Charts wnll l Take pictures 1 pornt

 

 

 

numbers 5 l

142

 

 

Plant and Flower Parts

  
 
 
 

 

   
   
 

     
 
 
       
  
 
     
   
 
 
  

>(_ ../~”" 7 . 7 Phloem Moves warterupthe \’ r-
7’ .~* ”' plant \\
7 ( Anchors 16f ‘ Pollen
Flower / -
plant //-
// //l \
/' /.// M . I‘\
/ Connects roots to lean-s, /’ Xylem 0“! food (“Jul”) ‘\
ﬂowers, and fruit . . tlhoughout plant
” Anther
..v/ Petals
//
1’] Found inside of l
/ the fruit
)/ Stamen
I
!
i Attracts pollinators like /
-\ bees and birds \_
\ Edible parts \V""\\
‘\ Plant olplnnt \ / \\‘ F‘lowe Female
., Parts ..
\

\ Draws minerals and
water from soil

   
  

  

Helps plant stand up
straight ‘,

  
 
 
 

 
 

Carbon

Stigma :‘
dioxide 17;

Oxygen

   

,1, ,-._.,1..H.,....g .- ..r.

   

/ /
Traps sunlight to 3'

"‘5'“: I“?! 1?"? _, 1: some - _ .. ..
‘ Process that makes plant food in
‘ the form ofsugar g;

   
 
 

Green ‘
Diem?!" ,

   

 

Chi 'll ,
. . om?!“ Q "—7 3-pornts

  

. ”VFW _* 2-points

" "v‘ 1—point

 

 

 

143

 

APPENDIX L
Letter to Parents
Dear Parent(s) or Guardian(s),

My name is Kelli Jo Berryhill and I am a graduate student at Michigan State University
in the horticulture department. I am a former biology teacher and have a special interest
in education, which is why I am involved with the 4-H Children’s Garden.

There are many classrooms that take time to go on ﬁeld trips whether it is to museums,
gardens, or the zoo, but very few get the opportunity to be part of a ﬁeld trip experience
termed the “Seeds of Science.” Seeds of Science are multiple, daylong ﬁeld trips that
have a very strong emphasis on science education. On these ﬁeld trips students will be
encouraged to observe, explore, and make discoveries in their new environment.
Students will visit the gardens on three separate occasions with approximately one week
between visits. Your child’s teacher has developed curricula that builds on the content
explored at the gardens.

In addition to the three visits to the gardens, I will be involved in pre and post visit
activities right at your child’s school. The pre-visit will consist of hands-on science
experiments, where students will sow seeds and begin forming hypotheses. During each
of the ﬁeld trips your son or daughter will collect and record data. This will involve
taking height measurements and perhaps taking digital images of their seedlings. Post-
activities will involve drawing conclusions from the initial experiment, determining what
further studies could be done, and if all grows well... a harvest party!

Seeds of Science is the focus of study for my master’s degree thesis research: Stimulating
Science Wonderment and Developing Scientiﬁc Knowledge With Post Field Trip
Activities and Ongoing Interactions. I am interested in looking at how post ﬁeld trip
activities inﬂuence student’s sense of wonder and curiosity as well as their content
knowledge. Very little research has been carried out that shows an effective way of
maintaining ongoing connections with teachers following ﬁeld trips. It is our hope that
the post-activities will reinforce what was learned on the ﬁeld trips and encourage
students to continue wondering about the world around them. Wonderment leads to
questioning, which in turn leads to hypotheses formation. These are crucial, exciting
steps in the science process.

To examine these topics, I will use questionnaires, observation and interviews. I plan to
give two questionnaires, one before the ﬁrst ﬁeld trip and the second after the post-
activities are ﬁnished. The questionnaire will evaluate student curiosity and will take
approximately ﬁfteen minutes to complete. Throughout the ﬁeld trip visits I will make
ten minute observations to further understand wonder and curiosity as a result of the
garden environment. Observations will be tape recorded to ensure the accuracy of the
data collected. The information gathered through the course of this study will be used for
the purposes of this project only and the conﬁdentiality of all participants will be

144

maintained. No names will be used. I guarantee that your child’s privacy will be
protected. Please talk to your child about the project so he/she is aware of the study.

Attached is a permission slip that authorizes your child to participate in the
questionnaires, observation and interviews as well as the ﬁeld trip to the 4-H Children’s
Garden. Participation in the research is completely voluntary and you can withdraw your
pemrission at any time. If you choose to not allow your child to be involved with the
research project, he/she may still participate in the ﬁeld trip.

I truly hope that your child will participate in the Seeds of Science and the powerﬁrl
learning opportunities it offers. Please feel free to contact my advisor, Dr. Norm
Lownds, or me with any questions or concerns that you may have. Also, if you have
further questions regarding your child’s rights as a study participant you may contact
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS).

Sincerely,

Kelli Jo Berryhill
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Horticulture, MSU. A332 Plant & Soil Sciences,
East Lansing, MI 48824. (517) 355-5191 x 378, bemhi4@mw.ﬂu

Dr. Norm Lownds
Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, MSU. A332 Plant & Soil Sciences, East
Lansing, MI 48824. (517)355-5191 x 349, lownds@msu.edu

Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, MSU, 202
Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI. 48824 (517) 355-2180, ucrihs@msu. ﬂu

145

4-H Children’s Garden Field Trip Permission Slip

You have read the letter explaining the Seeds of Science and are asked to give your
permission for your child (name) to participate in the
ﬁeld trips. You are free to discontinue your child’s involvement at any time without

explanation. You voluntarily agree to allow your child to participate in these ﬁeld trips.

 

 

(Parent/Guardian Signature) (Date)

Or, if you choose not to allow your child to participate in the ﬁeld trips at this time,
please sign below.

 

 

(Parent/Guardian Signature) (Date)

146

W

Stimulating Science Wonderment and Developing Scientific Knowledge With Post
Field Trip Activities and Ongoing Interactions

You are being asked to allow your child to participate in the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trip
study in the 4-H Children’s Garden. Details of this study are attached in the
parent/guardian letter. In addition, your child’s teacher has met with the 4-H Children’s
Garden Curator or Kelli Berryhill to discuss the study and the involvement of the class.
Your child’s participation is entirely voluntary and you are ﬁne to discontinue your
child’s involvement in this project at any time without explanation. Your child’s privacy
will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your signature below
indicates your voluntary agreement to allow your child to participate in this study.

 

 

(Parent/Guardian Signature) (Date)

Or if you choose not to allow your child to participate in this study at this time, please
sign below.

 

 

(Parent/Guardian Signature) (Date)

If you have any questions about this study please contact Dr. Norm Lownds or Kelli
Berryhill. If you have further questions about your child’s rights as a study participant,
or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, contact Peter Vasilenko,
Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS).

Kelli Jo Berryhill
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Horticulture, MSU. A332 Plant & Soil Sciences,
East Lansing, MI 48824. (517) 355-5191 x 378, berryhi4@msu.edu

Dr. Norm Lownds
Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, MSU. A332 Plant & Soil Sciences, East
Lansing, MI 48824. (517) 355-5191 x 349, lownds@mg.edu

Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, MSU, 202
Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI. 48824. (517) 355-2180, ucrihs@msu.edu

147

Parent — Voice Recording Consent

Stimulating Science Wonderment and Developing Scientiﬁc Knowledge With Post
Field Trip Activities and Ongoing Interactions

As part of the Seeds of Science research, your child’s voice may be tape—recorded. No
recorded voice will be identiﬁed by name. These tapes are solely for the purpose of this
study and will be destroyed upon its completion. Your child’s participation is completely
voluntary and you are ﬁne to discontinue your child’s involvement in this project at any
time without explanation. Your child’s privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to allow
your child to have his/her voice recorded as part of this study.

 

(Parent/Guardian Signature) (Date)

Or if you choose not to allow your child to participate in this study at this time, please
sign below.

 

(Parent/Guardian Signature) (Date)

Ifyou have any questions about this study please contact Dr. Norm Lownds or Kelli
Berryhill. Ifyou have ﬁrrther questions about your child’s rights as a study participant,
or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, contact Peter Vasilenko,
Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS).

Kelli Jo Berryhill
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Horticulture, MSU. A332 Plant & Soil Sciences,
East Lansing, MI 48824. (517) 355-5191 x 378, bemhi4@msu.edu

Dr. Norm Lownds
Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, MSU. A332 Plant & Soil Sciences, East
Lansing, MI 48824. (517) 355-5191 x 349, lownds@msu.edu

Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, MSU, 202
Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI. 48824. (517) 355-2180, ucrih ms .edu

148

St den n Form

Stimulating Science Wonderment and Developing Scientiﬁc Knowledge With Post
Field Trip Activities and Ongoing Interactions

Your teacher and parent(s) have talked to you about the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trip to the
4-H Children’s Garden. As part of that ﬁeld trip you will be working with Michigan
State University scientists and will be helping them ﬁgure out what makes ﬁeld trips
interesting and exciting. You will also help them determine what makes you wonder and
be curious. You will be asked to answer questions about wonder, curiosity, and science.
Sometimes you will be tape recorded so we can remember exactly what you said. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your signature below
indicates that you voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

 

(Student Signature) (Date)

Or if you choose not to allow your child to participate in this study at this time, please
sign below.

 

 

(Student Signature) (Date)

If you have any questions about this study please talk to your teacher or parent.

149

APPENDIX M
Letter to Teachers
Dear Teachers,

My name is Kelli Jo Berryhill and I am a graduate student at Michigan State University
in the horticulture department. I am a former biology teacher and have a special interest
in education, which is why I am involved with the 4-H Children’s Garden. The garden is
a wonderﬁrl, inviting place to allow children to be inquisitive and participate in real
scientiﬁc investigations. We are attempting to establish on-going connections with local
schools and teachers to make meaningﬁrl, engaging ﬁeld trip experiences.

There are many classrooms that take time to go on ﬁeld trips whether it is to museums,
gardens, or the zoo, but very few get the opportunity to be part of a ﬁeld trip experience
termed the “Seeds of Science.” Seeds of Science are multiple, daylong ﬁeld trips that
have a very strong emphasis on science education. On these ﬁeld trips students will be
encouraged to observe, explore, and make discoveries in their new environment.
Students will visit the gardens on three separate occasions with approximately one week
between visits.

In addition to the three visits to the gardens, I would like to be involved in pre and post
visit activities right in your classroom. The pre-visit will consist of hands-on science
experiments, where students will sow seeds and begin forming hypotheses. Data
collection will occur during each of the ﬁeld trips. This will involve mainly taking height
measurements and perhaps taking digital images of seedlings. Post-activities will involve
drawing conclusions ﬁ'om the initial experiment, determining what ﬁuther studies could
be done, and if all grows well... a harvest party! Your suggestions and ideas are
welcomed. Together we can build an intense, exciting plant science unit.

Seeds of Science is the focus of study for my master’s degree thesis research: Stimulating
Science Wonderment and Developing Scientiﬁc Knowledge With Post Field Trip
Activities and Ongoing Interactions. I am interested in looking at (how post ﬁeld trip
activities inﬂuence student’s sense of wonder and curiosity as well as their content
knowledge. Very little research has been carried out that shows an effective way of
maintaining ongoing connections with teachers following ﬁeld trips. It is our hope that
the post-activities will reinforce what was learned on the ﬁeld trips and encourage
students to continue wondering about the world around them. Wonderment leads to
questioning, which in turn leads to hypotheses formation. These are crucial, exciting
steps in the science process.

To examine these topics, I will use questionnaires, observation and interviews. I plan to
give two questionnaires, one before the ﬁrst ﬁeld trip and the second after the post-
activities are ﬁnished. The questionnaire will evaluate student curiosity and will take
approximately ﬁfteen minutes to complete. Throughout the ﬁeld trip visits I will make
ten nrinute observations to ﬁrrther understand wonder and curiosity as a result of the

150

garden environment. Observations will be tape recorded to ensure the accuracy of the
data collected. The information gathered through the course of this study will be used for
the purposes of this project only and the conﬁdentiality of all participants will be
maintained. No names will be used. I guarantee that the privacy of all students will be
protected. Please talk to your students to inform them of the study.

Attached is a permission slip that authorizes your involvement in the questionnaires,
observation and interviews as well as the ﬁeld trip to the 4-H Children’s Garden.
Participation in the research is completely voluntary and you can withdraw your
permission at any time. If you choose to not allow your class to be involved with the
research project, they may still participate in the ﬁeld trip.

I truly hope that your students will participate in the Seeds of Science and the powerﬁrl
learning opportunities it offers. Please feel free to contact my advisor, Dr. Norm
Lownds, or me with any questions or concerns that you may have. Also, if you have
further questions regarding your student’s rights as a study participant you may contact
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS).

Sincerely,

Kelli Jo Berryhill
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Horticulture, MSU. A332 Plant & Soil Sciences,
East Lansing, MI 48824. (517) 355-5191 x 378, W

Dr. Norm Lownds
Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, MSU. A332 Plant & Soil Sciences, East
Lansing, MI 48824. (517) 355-5191 x 349, W

Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, MSU, 202
Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI. 48824. (517) 355-2180, W

151

T cher Consent F rm

Stimulating Science Wonderment and Developing Scientiﬁc Knowledge With Post
Field Trip Activities and Ongoing Interactions

You are being asked to have your class participate in the Seeds of Science ﬁeld trip study
in the 4-H Children’s Garden. Details of this study are attached in the letter to the
teachers. You have also met with the 4-H Children’s Garden Curator or Kelli Berryhill to
discuss the study and the involvement of the class. Your participation is entirely
voluntary and you are free to discontinue your involvement in this project at any time
without explanation. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by
law. Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this
study.

 

 

(Teacher Signature) (Date)

Or if you choose not to allow your child to participate in this study at this time, please
sign below.

 

 

(Teacher Signature) (Date)

Ifyou have any questions about this study please contact Dr. Norm Lownds or Kelli
Berryhill. If you have ﬁrrther questions about your student’s rights as a study participant,
or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, contact Peter Vasilenko,
Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS).

Kelli Jo Berryhill
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept of Horticulture, MSU. A332 Plant & Soil Sciences,
East Lansing, MI 48824. (517) 355-5191 x 378, W

Dr. Norm Lownds
Associate Professor, Dept of Horticulture, MSU. A332 Plant & Soil Sciences, East
Lansing, MI 48824. (517) 355- 5191 x 349,1uownds@m§u,gd

Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, MSU, 202
Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI. 48824. (517) 355-2180, W

152

APPENDH N

UCRIHS Approval

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

May 25, 2004

TO: Norman LOWNDS
A 2408 Plant 8. Soil Sciences

RE: IRB# 04-290 CATEGORY: EXPEDITED 2-7

APPROVAL DATE: May 25, 2004
EXPIRATION DATE May 25, zoos

TITLE: Stimulating Science Wonderment and Developing Scientiﬁc Knowledge With
Post Field Trip Activities and Ongoing Interactions

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this

project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human

subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are

Was. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid unti the expiration date listed above. Projects
continuing beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such
expedited renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time
need to submit a 5-year application for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form
with the renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your
written request with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's lRBii and title. Include in your request a description of
the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

if we can be of further assistance. please contact us at (517) 1355-2180 or via email:

UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
htth/wwwhumanresearchmsuedu

Sincerely,

W

Peter Vasilenko, PhD.
UCRIHS Chair

153

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abad, E. 2003. Field trip preparation. The Science Teacher 70(2):44-47.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993. Benchmarks for science
literacy. New York, Oxford University Press.

Anderson, D., Lucas, B., Ginns, I. and L. Dierkling. 2000. Development of knowledge
about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit
activities. Science Education 84:658-679.

Ausubel, D. 1968. Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, Holt,
Rinehart, and Wilson.

Berlyne, D. 1954. An experimental study of human curiosity. British Journal of
Psychology 45:256.

Bitgood, S. 1989. School ﬁeld trips: An overview. Visitor Behavior 423-6.

Bitgood, S. 1991. What do we know about school ﬁeld trips? What research says...
ASTC Newsletter Jan/Feb:5-6,8.

Bjorkvold, J. 1992. The muse within: Creativity and communication, song, and play from
childhood through maturity. New York, Harper Collins.

Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., and D. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classiﬁcation of educational goals. New York, Longmans
Green.

Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R, Patrick, H., and J. Krajcik. 1998. International handbook of
teachers and teaching. Dordrecht, Kluwer.

Bogdan, R and S. Biklen. 1982. Qualitative research for education: an introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, Allyn & Bacon.

Bower, G. 1972. A selective review of organizational factors in memory. New York,
Academic Press.

Bransford, J ., Brown, A., and R. Cooking. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington DC, National Academy Press.

Bredekamp, S. and C. Copple 1997. Developmentally appropriate practice in early

childhood programs, 2'“I ed. Washington DC, National Association of the Education of
Young Children.

154

Bresler, C. 1991. Museums and environmental education. NAPEC Quarterly 2(1):6.

Briggs, C. 1986. Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the
interviewer in social science research. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Britton, J. 1970. Language and learning. Suffolk, The Penguin Press.

Brown, A, and J. Campione. 1986. Psychological theory and the study of learning
disabilities. American Psychologist 41: 1059-1068.

Byers, A, and M. A Fitzgerald. 2002. Networking for leadership, inquiry, and systemic
thinking: A new approach to inquiry-based learning. Journal of Science Education and
Technology ll(l):81-91.

Carey, S. 1986. Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist
41:1123-1130.

Carr, D. 1989. “Live up” to learners. Museum News. 54-55.

Chin, C., Brown, D., and B. Bertram. 2002. Student-generated questions: a meaningful
aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education 24(5):521-549.

Chin, C. and C. Li-Gek. 2004. Problem-based learning: Using students’ questions to
drive knowledge construction. Science Education 88:707-727.

Cobb, E. 1977. The ecology of imagination in childhood. New York, Columbia
University Press.

Comeaux, P., and R Huber. 2001. Students as scientists: Using interactive technologies
and collaborative inquiry in an environmental science project for teachers and their
students. Journal of Science Teacher Education 12(4):235-252.

Commeyras, M. 1995. What can we learn form students’ questions? Theory Into Practice
34(2): 101-106.

Cooper, C., Ayers—Lopez, S., and A. Marquis. 1981. Children’s discourse in cooperative
and didactic interaction: developmental patterns in effective learning. Washington DC:
National Institute of Education.

Cooper, L. 1945. Louis Agassiz as a teacher: Illustrative extracts on his method of
instruction. London, Constable and Company, Ltd.

Costa, J ., Caldeira, H., Gallastegui, J., and J. Otero. 2000. An analysis of question asking

on scientiﬁc texts explaining natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 37(6):602-614.

155

Crandell, T., Kleid, N., and C. Soderston. 1996. Empirical evaluation of concept
mapping: A job performance aid for writers. Technical Communication 43(2): 157-159.

Dale, E. 1937. Children’s questions as a source of curriculum material. Educational
Research Bulletin 16:57-66.

Day, H. 1982. Curiosity and the interested explorer. Performance and Instruction 21:19-
22.

DeBoer, G. 1991. A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New
York, Teachers College Press.

DeBoer, G. and R Bybee. 1995. Redesigning the science curriculum. Colorado Springs,
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.

Delaney, A 1967. An experimental investigation of the effectiveness of teachers
introduction on implementing a science ﬁeld trip. Science Education 51(5):474-481.

Department for Education. 1995. Key stages 1 and 2 of the National Curriculum.
London, HMSO.

Dierking, L. and J. Falk. 2000. One teacher’s agenda for a class visit to an interactive
science center. Science Education 84:524-544.

Dillon, J. 1982. The multidisciplinary study of questioning. Journal of Educational
Psychology 74: 147-165.

Dillon, J. 1988. The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum
Studies 20:197-210.

Dillon, J. 1990. The practice of questioning. New York, Routledge, Chapman, Hall.

Dixon, N. 1996. Developing children’s questioning skills through the use of a ‘question
board.’ Primary Science Review 44:8-10.

Donaldson, M. 1978. Children’s minds. New York, W.W. Norton.

Dori, Y., and O. Herscovitz. 1999. Question-posing capability as an alternative
evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 36:411-430.

Doris, E. 1991. Doing what scientists do: Children learn to investigate their world.
Portsmouth, Heinemann.

Driscoll, E. 2004. Fostering wonder and curiosity: Immersion ﬁeld trips in the Michigan
4-H Children’s Garden. East Lansing, Michigan State University.

156

DuVall, R 2001a. Cultivating curiosity with comfort: Skills for inquiry-based teaching.
Primary Voices K-6 10(1):33-36.

DuVall, R. 2001b. Inquiry in science: From curiosity to understanding. Primary Voices
K-6 10(1):3-9.

Falk, J ., Koran, J ., and L. Dierking. 1986. The things of science: Assessing the learning
potential of science museums. Science Education 70(5)503-508.

Falk, J. 2004. The director’s cut: Toward an improved understanding of learning from
museums. Online Wiley InterScience.

Fisher, R. 1990. Teaching children to think. Oxford, Blackwell.

Fontana A and J. Frey. 2000. The interview, in Denzin, N. and Y. Lincoln. Handbook of
qualitative research (2“Cl Ed). Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Freeman, L. and A Urbaczewski. 1999. Concept maps and information systems: An
investigation into the assessment of students’ understanding of IS. Presented at the Fifth
Amcericas Conference on Information Systems.

Freeman, L. and A Urbaczewski. 2003. Concept maps as an alternative technique for
assessing students’ understanding of telecommunications. Presented at the 17" Annual
Conference of the International Academy for Information Management.

Gagne, R and R White. 1978. Memory structures and learning outcomes. Review of
Educational Research 48: 187-222.

Gallagher, 8., Stepien, W., Sher, B., and D. Workman. 1995. Implementing problem-
based learning in science classroom. School Science and Mathematics 95(3): 136-146,

Gardner, H. 1993. The unschooled mind. London, Fontana Press.

Gennaro, E. 1981. The effectiveness of using previsit instructional materials on learning
for a museum ﬁeld trip experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 18(3):275-
279.

Glaser, R. and M. Bassok. 1989. Learning theory and the study of institution. Annual
Review of Psychology 40:631-666.

Gleitman, L. and M. Liberman 1995. An invitation to cognitive science. Cambridge,
MIT Press.

Goldsmith, T., Johnson, P., and W. Acton. 1991. Assessing structural knowledge.
Journal of Educational Psychology 83:88-96.

157

Good, T., Slavings, R., Harel, K., and H. Emerson. 1987. Student passivity: A study of
question asking in K-12 classrooms. Sociology of Education 60:181-199.

Graesser, A, and N. Person. 1994. Question asking during tutoring. American
Educational Research Journal 31(1):]04-137.

Grifﬁn, J. and D. Symington. 1997. Moving ﬁ'om task-oriented to learning-oriented
strategies on school excursions to museums. Science Education 81:763-779.

Groen, J ., Smit, E., and J. Eijsvoogel. 1990. The discipline of curiosity: Science in the
world. New York, Elsevier Science.

Gubrium, J. 1993. Speaking of life: Horizons of meaning for nursing home residents.
Hawthorne, Aldine de Gruyter.

Hadzigeorgiou, Y. 1999. On problem situations and science learning. School Science
Review 81:43-53.

Hadzigeorgiou, Y. 2001. The role of wonder and ‘romance’ in early childhood science
education. International Journal of Early Years Education 9(1):63-69.

Hamilton, E. 1961. Plato collected dialogues. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Hannabuss, S. 1996. Research interviews. New Library World 97(1129):22-31.

Harper, K., Etkina, E., and Y. Lin. 2003. Encouraging and analyzing student questions in
a large physics course: Meaningful patterns for instructors. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 40(8):?76-791.

Harre, R. 1981. Great scientiﬁc experiments. Oxford, Phaidon Press.

Harte, D. 1989. Fine tuning the learning experience: An information age model for
excellence. NASSP Bulletin June:28-35.

Haury, D. 1993. Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC CSMEE Digest ED359048.

Hoﬁ‘mann, R and V. Torrence. 1993. Chemistry imagined — Reﬂections on science.
Washington DC, Smithsonian Institute Press.

Holstein, J. and J. Gubrium. 1995. The active interview. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Holstein J. and J. Gubrium. 2002. Active interviewing. In Weinberg, D., Qualitative
research methods. Malden, Blackwell.

Hove, P. 1996. The face of wonder. Journal of Curriculum Studies 2:397—418.

158

Isaacs, S. 1930. Intellectual growth in young children. London, Routledge.

Jenkins, J. 1969. An experimental investigation of the effects of structured science
experiences on curiosity among fourth grade children. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 6: 128-135.

Jonassen, D., Beissner, K. and M. Yacci. 1993. Concept mapping for the development of
medical curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32(7):777-793.

Keown, D. 1984. Lets justify the ﬁeld trip. The American Biology Teacher 46(1):43-48.

King, A. 1994. Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching
children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal
3 1 :338-3 68.

Kleinman, G. 1965. Teacher’s questions and student understanding of science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 3:307-317.

Knapp, D. 2000. Memorable experiences of a science ﬁeld trip. School Science and
Mathematics 100(2):65-72.

Koran, J ., Lehman, J ., Shafer, L., and M. Koran. 1983. The relative effects of pre- and
post attention directing devices on learning form a ‘walk-through’ museum exhibit.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20(4):341-346.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, R, Mark, R, Bass, K., Fredricks, J., and E. Soloway. 1998.
Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences 7(3&4):313-350.

Krepel, W. and C. Duvall. 1981. Field trips: A guide for planning and conducting
educational experiences. Washington DC, National Education Association.

Krupa, J. 2002. Multiple stages of weekend ﬁeld trips to expose students to nature. The
American Biology Teacher 64(3): 194-200.

Kubota, C. and R Olstad. 1991. Effects of novelty-reducing preparation on exploratory
behavior and cognitive learning in a science museum setting. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 28(3):225-234.

LaFrance, M. 1992. Questioning knowledge acquisition. Hillsdale, Erlbaum.

Lanzing, J. 1996. Concept mapping: Tools for echoing the minds eye. 4tll IVLA research
symposium.

Latharn, G. 1996. Fostering and preserving wonderment. Australian Journal of Early
Childhood 21(1):]2-15.

159

Lawson, A. 1995. Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont,
Wadsworth.

Lazarowitz, R., and P. Tamir. 1994. Handbook of research on science teaching and
learning. New York, Macmillan.

Lieberman, G. 1999. Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an .
integrating context for learning. San Diego, State Education and the Environment
Roundtable.

Lincoln, Y. and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Sage.

Long, D. ,Drake, K, and D. Halychyn. 2004. Go on a sciencequest. Science and
Children 42(2) 40-45

Lownds, N. and the Comm. Tech. Lab. 1999. Plant Problems CD-ROM. East Lansing,
Michigan State University. MW.

Lownds, N., Heeter, C., and P. Rhodes. 2004. The on-line Wonder Wall.

Lucas, K. 1999. When Mr. Jones took grade 5 to the Sciencentre. Presented at AARE-
NZARE conference.

Marazano, R, Brant, R., Hughes, C., Jones, E, Presseisen, B., Rankin, S., and C. Suhor.
1998. Dimensions of thinking: A ﬁamework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria,
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marbach-Ad, G., and P. Sokolove. 2000. Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask
higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37:854-870.

Markham, K. and J. Mintzes. 1994. The concept map as a research and evaluationtool:
Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31(1):91-101.

Marshall, S. 1995. Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.

Martin, w., Falk, J., and J. Balling. 1931. Environmental effects on learning: The
outdoor ﬁeld trip. Science Education 65(3):301-309.

Maw, W. and E. Maw. 1961. Information recognition by children with high and low
curiosity. Educational Research Bulletin 40:197.

McClure, J. and P. Bell. 1990. Effects of an environmental education related STS

approach instruction on cognitive structures of pre-service science teachers. ERIC
Digests, ED 341 582.

160

McClure, J ., Sonak, B., and H. Suen. 1999. Concept map assessment of classroom
learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 36(4):475-492.‘

McNamara, E. and Fowler, H. 1975. Out of door earth science: One reason why. School
Science and Mathematics 75(5):413-418.

McNay, M. 1985. Science: All the wonder things. Childhood Education 61:375-378.

Meredith, J ., Fortner, R, and G. Mullins. 1997. Model of affective learning for nonforrnal
science education facilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34(8):805-817.

Merriam, E. 1991. The wise woman and her secret. New York, Simon and Schuster.

Metz, K. 1995. Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science
instruction. Review of educational research 65:93-128.

Miyake, N. and D. Norman. 1979. To ask a question, one must know enough to know
what is not known. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18:357-344.

Mintzes, J ., Wandersee, J., and J. Novak. 1997. Teaching science for understanding. San
Diego, Academic Press. .

National Research Council. 1996. National science education standards. Washington
DC, National Academy Press.

National Research Council. 2000. Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC, National Academy Press.

Nikola-Lisa, W. 1988. On the education of wonder and ecstasy. Holistic Education
Review l(2):256-261.

Novak, J. 1977. A theory of education. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Novak, J. 1990. Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 10:923-949.

Novak, J. 1993. How do we learn our lesson?: Taking students through the process.
Science Teacher 60(3):50-55.

Novak, J. and D. Gowin. 1984. Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Olson, G., Duﬁ‘y, S., and R Mack. 1985. The psychology of questions. Hillsadale,
Erlbaum.

161

Opdal, P. 2001. Curiosity, wonder and education seen as perspective development.
Studies in Philosophy and Education 20:331-344.

Orion, N. 1993. A model for the development and implementation of ﬁeld trips as an
integral part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics 93 (6):325-33 1.

Orion, N. and A Hofstein. 1994. Factors that influence learning during a science ﬁeld
trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31(10):1097-
ll 19.

Patton, M. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2"d ed. Newbury Park,
Sage.

Pearce, C. 1999. Nurturing inquiry: Real science for the elementary classroom.
Portsmouth, Heinemann.

Pedretti, E. 2002. T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: Critical conversations and new directions in
science centers and science museums. Studies in Science Education 37: 1-42.

Pedrosa de Jesus, M., and R. Maskill. 1990. Teachers’ questioning practices in some
portuguese science classes. Revista Portuguesa de Educacao 3:37-56.

Piaget, J. 1964. Six psychological studies. New York, Vintage.

Pizzini, E. and Shepardson, D. 1991. Student questioning in the presence of the teacher
during problem solving in science. School Science and Mathematics 91(8):348-3 52.

Prather, J. 1989. Review of the value of ﬁeld trips in science instruction. Journal of
Elementary-Science Education 1(1):10-17.

Ramey-Gassert, L., Walberg 111, H, and H. Walberg. 1994. Reexamining connections:
Museums as science learning environments. Science Education 7 8(4):345-464.

Ramey-Gassert, L. 1997. Learning science beyond the classroom. The Elementary
School Journal 97(4):433-450.

Resnick, L. 1983. Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science
220(4596):477-478.

Resnick, L. 1987. The 1987 presidential address: Learning in and out of school.
Educational Researcher 16(9): 13-19.

Rice, D., Ryan, J ., and S. Samson. 1998. Using concept maps to assess student learning in

the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 35(10):l 103-1127.

162

Riley, D. and J. Kahle. 1995. Exploring students’ constructed perceptions of science
through visiting particular exhibits as a science museum. Presented at National
Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Rivkin, M. 2000. Outdoor experiences for young children. ERIC Digest ED448013.

Rosenshire, B., Meister, C., and S. Chapman. 1996. Teaching students to generate
questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research 66: 181-
221.

Roth, W. and A Roychoudhury. 1993. The development of science process skills in
authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30: 127-152.

Rudmann, C. 1994. A review of the use and implementation of science ﬁeld trips.
School Science and Mathematics 94(3): 138-141.

Ruiz-Primo, M., Schultz, S., Li, M., and R Shavelson. 2001. Comparison of the
reliability and validity of scores ﬁ'om two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 38(2):260-278.

Ruiz-Primo, M. and R. Shavelson. 1996. Problems and issues in the use of concept maps
in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33:569-600.

Rumelhart, D. and D. Norman. 1981. Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes
of learning. Hillsdale, Erlbaum.

Rutherford, J. 1964. The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 2:80-84.

Rye, J. and P. Rubba. 2002. Scoring concept maps: An expert map-based scheme
weighted for relationships. School Science and Mathematics 102(1):33-44.

Sack, H., Scheglogg, E. and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:696-735.

Scardamalia, M., and C. Bereiter. 1992. Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by
children. Cognition and Instruction 9: 177-199.

Schau, C. and N. Mattern. 1997. Use of map techniques in teaching applied statistics
courses. The American Statistician 51:171-175.

Schau, C., Mattern, N., Weber, R, Minnick, K., and C. Witt. 1997. Use of ﬁll-in concept

maps to assess middle school students’ connected understanding of science. Presented at
the AERA Annual Meeting.

163

Schmidt, H. 1993. Foundations of problem-based learning: Rationale and description.
Medical Education 17:1 1-16.

Schwab, J. 1962. The teaching of science. Cambridge, Harvard University.
Semper, R. 1990. Science museums as environments for learning. Physics Today 4322-8.

Shodell, M. 1995. The question-driven classroom. The American Biology Teacher
57(5):278-281.

Shymansky, J. ,Kyle, W., thand J. Alport. 1982. The effects of new science curricula on
student performance. 55;h Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research rn
Science Teaching.

Stern, A 1971. The search for meaning. Memphis, Memphis University Press.

Stern, D. 1973. The interpersonal world of the child. New York, Basic Books.

Taba, H., Levine, S., and F. Elzey. 1964. Thinking in elementary school children. San
Francisco, San Francisco State College.

Tamir, P. 1983. Inquiry and the science teacher. Science Education 67(5):657-672.

Torrance, E. 1965. Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments in classroom creative
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

Tuckey, C. 1992. School children’s reactions to an interactive science center. Curator
35(1):28-38.

UNESCO. 1980. UNESCO handbook for science teachers. London, Heinemann.
Wallace, J. and J. Mintzes. 1990. The concept map as a research tool: exploring .
conceptual change in biology.~ Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27(10)1033-
1052.

Wandersee, J. 1990. Concept mapping and the cartography of cognition. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 27(10):923-936.

Watts, M., Gould, G., and S. Alsop. 1997. Questions of understanding: categorizing
pupils’ questions in science. School Science Review 79(286):57-63.

Weber, L. 1971. The English infant school and informal education. Englewood Cliffs,
Prentice Hall.

Weinstein, C. and R. Mayer. 1986. The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Willrock,
ed. Handbook of research on teaching, 3 15-3 27. New York, Macmillan.

164

Welch, W., Klopfer, L., Aikenhead, G., and J. Robinson. 1981. The role of inquiry in
science education: analysis and recommendations. Science Education 65(1):33-50.

Wellington, J. 1990. Formal and informal learning in science: The role of the interactive
science centers. Physics Education 25(5):247-252.

White, R. and R. Gunstone. 1992. Probing understanding. London, F almer Press.
Whitehead, A. 1929. The aims of education. New York, Macmillan.

Wise, K. 1996. Strategies for teaching science: What works? The Clearing House 69:337-
338.

Woodward, C. 1992. Raising and answering questions in primary science: some
considerations. Evaluation and Research in Education 6(2/3)215-21.

Yager, R 1997. Invited paper. The Science Teacher 64:8.

Yager, R 2000. The history and ﬁrture of science education reform. The Clearing House
74:5 1-54.

Yolen, J. 1981. Touch magic. New York, Philomel Books.
Zoller, U., Tsaparlis, G., F atsow, M., and A. Lubezky. 1997. Student self-assessment of

higher-order cognitive skills in college science teaching. Jouranl of College Science
Teaching 27299-101.

.165

‘v’ LIBRARIES

i ii

IATE UNIVERSII
i I ‘
IHWH
iimi

i S

5.
ll

1

MICHI

i
H M
3

1293 02956 1

“ ‘Cilr
ii i

i

. r. I
. 3...: 3.1.1! 3

pi]. e x I”...

x- .
ii.-
.25..