Quantitative acoustic differentiation of cryptic species illustrated with King and Clapper rails

Reliable species identification is vital for survey and monitoring programs. Recently, the development of digital technology for recording and analyzing vocalizations has assisted in acoustic surveying for cryptic, rare, or elusive species. However, the quantitative tools that exist for species differentiation are still being refined. Using vocalizations recorded in the course of ecological studies of a King Rail (Rallus elegans) and a Clapper Rail (Rallus crepitans) population, we assessed the accuracy and effectiveness of three parametric (logistic regression, discriminant function analysis, quadratic discriminant function analysis) and six nonparametric (support vector machine, CART, Random Forest, k�nearest neighbor, weighted k�nearest neighbor, and neural networks) statistical classification methods for differentiating these species by their kek mating call. We identified 480 kek notes of each species and quantitatively characterized them with five standardized acoustic parameters. Overall, nonparametric classification methods outperformed parametric classification methods for species differentiation (nonparametric tools were between 57% and 81% accurate, parametric tools were between 57% and 60% accurate). Of the nine classification methods, Random Forest was the most accurate and precise, resulting in 81.1% correct classification of kek notes to species. This suggests that the mating calls of these sister species are likely difficult for human observers to tell apart. However, it also implies that appropriate statistical tools may allow reasonable species�level classification accuracy of recorded calls and provide an alternative to species classification where other capture� or genotype�based survey techniques are not possible

Inquiry pedagogy to promote emerging proportional reasoning in primary students

Proportional reasoning as the capacity to compare situations in relative (multiplicative) rather than absolute (additive) terms is an important outcome of primary school mathematics. Research suggests that students tend to see comparative situations in additive rather than multiplicative terms and this thinking can influence their capacity for proportional reasoning in later years. In this paper, excerpts from a classroom case study of a fourth-grade classroom (students aged 9) are presented as they address an inquiry problem that required proportional reasoning. As the inquiry unfolded, students' additive strategies were progressively seen to shift to proportional thinking to enable them to answer the question that guided their inquiry. In wrestling with the challenges they encountered, their emerging proportional reasoning was supported by the inquiry model used to provide a structure, a classroom culture of inquiry and argumentation, and the proportionality embedded in the problem context

Prospective elementary teachers’ knowledge of teaching science as argument

The National Research Council emphasizes the centrality of discourse and practices associated with constructing, evaluating, and using scientific explanations. These expectations increase already daunting challenges for those who teach science at the elementary school level. This study followed a multiparticipant case study approach examining prospective elementary teachers' self-reports of teaching science as argument. Findings yield that the presence of opportunities for physical experimentation with firsthand data during science instruction helped participants increase their emphasis on evidence-based explanations. Participants also viewed science talks as essential and fundamental for engaging students in evidence-based explanations. Finally, participants demonstrated attention to scientific subject matter. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for teacher education.</p