Exploring Prospective Teachers’ Ability to Generate and Analyze Evidence-based Explanatory Arguments

In this paper, using written responses of 37 PSTs preparing to teach grades 1-8 mathematics, we examined explanations they constructed to support their problem solutions and explanations they provided in support of their critiques of student-generated explanations. We also examined features of explanations on which PSTs drew in their critiques of mathematical explanations of students. Our results draw attention to the importance of helping PSTs develop competencies in constructing and critiquing mathematical explanations concurrently. Although explanations PSTs generated for their critiques of student explanations were weaker compared to the explanations PSTs formulated for their own problem solutions, PSTs proficient in generating mathematical explanations were also more proficient in analyzing and critiquing mathematical explanations. We identified seven criteria PSTs used while analyzing and critiquing student-explanations. These criteria reveal what PSTs might value, or pay attention to, as they critique student-explanations. We share implications for mathematics teacher educators to consider and suggest directions for further research.

Question order and student understanding of structure and function

The relationship between structure and function is a core concept in physiology education. Written formative assessments can provide insight into student learning of the structure and function relationship, which can then inform pedagogy. However, question order may influence student explanations. We explored how the order of questions from different cognitive levels affects student explanations. A junior level General Physiology class was randomly split in half. One-half of the students answered, “Define the principle: form reflects function,” followed by “Give an example of the principle: form reflects function” (format DX), whereas the other half answered, “Give an example of the principle: form reflects function,” followed by “Define the principle: form reflects function” (format XD). Human grading and computerized lexical analysis were used to evaluate student responses. Two percent of students in the format DX group related structure and function in their definition, whereas 48% of students related structure and function in their examples. In the format XD group, 17% related structure and function in their definition, and 26% related structure and function in their example of the principle. Overall, students performed better on the last question in the sequence, which may be evidence for conceptual priming. Computerized lexical analysis revealed that students draw on only a few levels of organization and may be used by instructors to quickly assess the levels of organization students use in their responses. Written assessment coupled with lexical analysis has the potential to reveal student understanding of core concepts in anatomy and physiology education.