The author is concerned about the methodology and instrumentation used to assess both graphing abilities and the impact of microcomputer-based laboratories (MBL) on students’ graphing abilities for four reasons: (1) the ability to construct and interpret graphs is critical for developing key ideas in science; (2) science educators need to have valid information for making teaching decisions; (3) educators and researchers are heralding the arrival of MBL as a tool for developing graphing abilities; and (4) some of the research which supports using MBL appears to have significant validity problems. In this article, the author will describe the research which challenges the validity of using multiple-choice instruments to assess graphing abilities. The evidence from this research will identify numerous disparities between the results of multiple-choice and free-response instruments. In the first study, 72 subjects in the seventh, ninth, and eleventh grades were administered individual clinical interviews to assess their ability to construct and interpret graphs. A wide variety of graphs and situations were assessed. In three instances during the interview, students drew a graph that would best represent a situation and then explained their drawings. The results of these clinical graphing interviews were very different from similar questions assessed through multiple-choice formats in other research studies. In addition, insights into students’ thinking about graphing reveal that some multiple-choice graphing questions from prior research studies and standardized tests do not discriminate between right answerslright reasons, right answers/wrong reasons, and answers scored “wrong” but correct for valid reasons. These results indicate that in some instances multiple-choice questions are not a valid measure of graphing abilities, In a second study, the researcher continued to pursue the questions raised about the validity of multiple-choice tests to assess graphing, researching the following questions: What can be learned about subjects’ graphing abilities when students draw their own graphs compared to assessing by means of a multiple-choice instrument? Does the methodology used to assess graphing abilities: (1) affect the percentage of subjects who answer correctly; (2) alter the percentage of subjects affected by the “picture of the event” phenomenon? Instruments were constructed consisting of
[1]
Gaea Leinhardt,et al.
Functions, Graphs, and Graphing: Tasks, Learning, and Teaching
,
1990
.
[2]
J. Mokros,et al.
The impact of microcomputer‐based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs
,
1987
.
[3]
Heather Brasell,et al.
The effect of real‐time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity
,
1987
.
[4]
Rafi Nachmias,et al.
Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: Graphing skills development*
,
1987
.
[5]
Michael J. Wavering.
Logical Reasoning Necessary to Make Line Graphs.
,
1989
.
[6]
Daphne Kerslake.
The Understanding of Graphs.
,
1977
.
[7]
Michael J. Padilla,et al.
Effects of Laboratory Activities and Written Simulations on the Acquisition of Graphing Skills by Eighth Grade Students.
,
1984
.
[8]
John Clement,et al.
Adolescents' Graphing Skills: A Descriptive Analysis.
,
1985
.
[9]
Patricia E. Blosser,et al.
National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, Abstracts of Presented Papers (58th, French Lick Springs, IN, April 15-18, 1985).
,
1984
.
[10]
Richard D. Powers,et al.
A study of graph comprehension difficulties
,
1959
.
[11]
William L. Barclay,et al.
Graphing Misconceptions and Possible Remedies Using Microcomputer-Based Labs.
,
1985
.
[12]
Craig A. Berg,et al.
An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs
,
1994
.
[13]
Michael J. Padilla,et al.
The Construction and Validation of the Test of Graphing in Science (TOGS).
,
1986
.