Assessment and science education: Our essential new priority?

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/92394/1/21033_ftp.pd

NHMRC information paper: evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions

This paper provides a summary of evidence from research on the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating health conditions in humans. Findings There was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered: no good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment. For some health conditions, studies reported that homeopathy was not more effective than placebo. For other health conditions, there were poor-quality studies that reported homeopathy was more effective than placebo, or as effective as another treatment. However, based on their limitations, those studies were not reliable for making conclusions about whether homeopathy was effective. For the remaining health conditions it was not possible to make any conclusion about whether homeopathy was effective or not, because there was not enough evidence. Conclusions Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective. Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments

An algorithm to compare two‐dimensional footwear outsole images using maximum cliques and speeded‐up robust feature

Footwear examiners are tasked with comparing an outsole impression (Q) left at a crime scene with an impression (K) from a database or from the suspect\u27s shoe. We propose a method for comparing two shoe outsole impressions that relies on robust features (speeded‐up robust feature; SURF) on each impression and aligns them using a maximum clique (MC). After alignment, an algorithm we denote MC‐COMP is used to extract additional features that are then combined into a univariate similarity score using a random forest (RF). We use a database of shoe outsole impressions that includes images from two models of athletic shoes that were purchased new and then worn by study participants for about 6 months. The shoes share class characteristics such as outsole pattern and size, and thus the comparison is challenging. We find that the RF implemented on SURF outperforms other methods recently proposed in the literature in terms of classification precision. In more realistic scenarios where crime scene impressions may be degraded and smudged, the algorithm we propose—denoted MC‐COMP‐SURF—shows the best classification performance by detecting unique features better than other methods. The algorithm can be implemented with the R‐package shoeprintr

Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions

Policy documents in science education suggest that even at the earliest years of formal schooling, students are capable of constructing scientific explanations about focal content. Nonetheless, few research studies provide insights into how to effectively provide scaffolds appropriate for late elementary‐age students' fruitful creation of scientific explanations. This article describes two research studies to address the question, what makes explanation construction difficult for elementary students? The studies were conducted in urban fourth, fifth, and sixth grade classrooms where students were learning science through curricular units that contained 8 weeks of scaffold‐rich activities focused on explanation construction. The first study focused on the kind and amount of information scaffold‐rich assessments provided about young students' abilities to construct explanations under a range of scaffold conditions. Results demonstrated that fifth and sixth grade tests provided strong information about a range of students' abilities to construct explanations under a range of supported conditions. On balance, the fourth grade test did not provide as much information, nor was this test curricular‐sensitive. The second study provided information on pre–post test achievement relative to the amount of curricular intervention utilized over the 8‐week time period with each cohort. Results demonstrated that when taking the amount of the intervention into account, there were strong learning gains in all three grade‐level cohorts. In conjunction with the pre–post study, a type‐of‐error analysis was conducted to better understand the nature of errors among younger students. This analysis revealed that our youngest students generated the most incomplete responses and struggled in particular ways with generating valid evidence. Conclusions emphasize the synergistic value of research studies on scaffold‐rich assessments, curricular scaffolds, and teacher guidance toward a more complete understanding of how to support young students' explanation construction. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 141–165, 2012Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90320/1/20454_ftp.pd

Contenido matemático fundacional para el aprendizaje en los primeros años

En este capítulo se describe el contenido matemático fundacional accesible para niñas y niños pequeños. El foco en este capítulo está puesto en las propias ideas matemáticas, más que en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de las mismas. Estas ideas matemáticas se dan por sentadas por los adultos, pero son sorprendentemente profundas y complejas. Hay dos áreas fundamentales en las matemáticas para la primera infancia: (1) el número y (2) la geometría y la medición, tal como identifican los Focos Currículares del NCTM y subrraya este comité. También hay importantes procesos de razonamiento matemático en que los niños deben implicarse. Este capítulo también describe algunas de las conexiones más importantes de las matemáticas infantiles con las matemáticas posteriores

Bridging Physics and Biology Teaching through Modeling

As the frontiers of biology become increasingly interdisciplinary, the physics education community has engaged in ongoing efforts to make physics classes more relevant to life sciences majors. These efforts are complicated by the many apparent differences between these fields, including the types of systems that each studies, the behavior of those systems, the kinds of measurements that each makes, and the role of mathematics in each field. Nonetheless, physics and biology are both sciences that rely on observations and measurements to construct models of the natural world. In the present theoretical article, we propose that efforts to bridge the teaching of these two disciplines must emphasize shared scientific practices, particularly scientific modeling. We define modeling using language common to both disciplines and highlight how an understanding of the modeling process can help reconcile apparent differences between the teaching of physics and biology. We elaborate how models can be used for explanatory, predictive, and functional purposes and present common models from each discipline demonstrating key modeling principles. By framing interdisciplinary teaching in the context of modeling, we aim to bridge physics and biology teaching and to equip students with modeling competencies applicable across any scientific discipline.Comment: 10 pages, 2 figures, 3 table

Oersted Lecture 2014: Physics education research and teaching modern Modern Physics

Citation: Zollman, D. (2016). Oersted Lecture 2014: Physics education research and teaching modern Modern Physics. American Journal of Physics, 84(8), 573-580. doi:10.1119/1.4953824Modern Physics has been used as a label for most of physics that was developed since the discovery of X-rays in 1895. Yet, we are teaching students who would not use the label "modern" for anything that happened before about 1995, when they were born. So, are we and our students in worlds that differ by a century? In addition to content, sometimes our students and we have differing views about methods and styles of teaching. A modern course in any topic of physics should include applications of contemporary research in physics education and the learning sciences as well as research and developments in methods of delivering the content. Thus, when we consider teaching Modern Physics, we are challenged with deciding what the content should be, how to adjust for the ever increasing information on how students learn physics, and the constantly changing tools that are available to us for teaching and learning. When we mix all of these together, we can teach modern Modern Physics or maybe teach Modern Physics modernly. © 2016 American Association of Physics Teachers