Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Framework for Teaching and Learning Graphing in Undergraduate Biology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Trends in Teaching Experimentation in the Life Sciences

Part of the book series: Contributions from Biology Education Research ((CBER))

Abstract

Graphing is a scientific practice that is integral throughout the process of inquiry and experimentation. It involves making graphs to explore patterns in data and communicate findings to others and reading graphs to understand and make claims about data. Graphing involves the integration of concepts and practices from diverse fields including mathematics and statistics, cognitive science, and the discipline in which the data were gathered. In biology, the disciplinary concepts and practices include methods of inquiry (measurements, instrumentation) and the features of the biological system under study. In addition, biology and subdisciplines within biology have community-established norms and expectations which affect graphing and graphs. Here we present a framework for teaching graphing as part of authentic practice in undergraduate biology and use two case studies to illustrate what this approach to teaching graphing could look like in practice. General recommendations for teaching and assessing graphing in biology are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • AAMC-HHMI Committee. (2009). Scientific foundations for future physicians (pp. 26–29). Association of American Medical Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2007). Putting the horse back in front of the cart: Using visions and decisions about high-quality learning experiences to drive course design. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 85–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action (C. Brewer & D. Smith, Eds.). Washington, DC. https://visionandchange.org/finalreport/. Accessed 18 Oct 2021.

  • Angra, A. (2016). Understanding, evaluating, and diagnosing undergraduate student difficulties with graph choice and construction (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).

    Google Scholar 

  • Angra, A., & Gardner, S. M. (2016). Development of a framework for graph choice and construction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(1), 123–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angra, A., & Gardner, S. M. (2017). Reflecting on graphs: Attributes of graph choice and construction practices in biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(3), ar53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angra, A., & Gardner, S. M. (2018). The graph rubric: Development of a teaching, learning, and research tool. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(4), ar65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D. I., Lawrie, G., McLinn, C. M., Pelaez, N., Rowland, S., Towns, M., Trautmann, N. M., Varma-Nelson, P., Weston, T. J., & Dolan, E. L. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, C. A., & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students’ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments. Science Education, 78, 527–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W. M. (1998). Lecturing graphing: What features of lectures contribute to student difficulties in learning to interpret graphs? Research in Science Education, 28, 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. M., Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Toward a social practice view of scientific presentation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1020–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray Speth, E., Momsen, J. L., Moyerbrailean, G. A., Ebert-May, D., Long, T. M., Wyse, S., & Linton, D. (2010). 1, 2, 3, 4: Infusing quantitative literacy into introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(3), 323–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. J., & Wilson, M. (2011). A model of cognition: The missing cornerstone of assessment. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemmons, A., Timbrook, J., Herron, J., & Crowe, A. (2020). BioSkills Guide. Core Competencies for Undergraduate Biology, (version 5.0). QUBES Educational Resources. https://doi.org/10.25334/156H-T617

  • College Board. (2019). AP biology course and exam description. https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/pdf/ap-biology-course-and-exam-description-0.pdf?course=ap-biology

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987, January). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics (Technical Report No. 403). BBN Laboratories, Centre for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curcio, F. R. (1989). Developing graph comprehension. Elementary and middle school activities. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc., 1906 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBoy, C. A. (2017). Student use of self-data for out-of-class graphing activities increases student engagement and learning outcomes. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 18(3), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P. (2004). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2(2004), 813–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franconeri, S. L., Scimeca, J. M., Roth, J. C., Helseth, S. A., & Kahn, L. E. (2012). Flexible visual processing of spatial relationships. Cognition, 122(2), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, M., Bragg, S., de los Santos, A. G., Jr., Denton, D. D., Gerber, P., Lindquist, M. M., Rosser, J. M., Sanchez, D. A., & Meyer, C. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science (Mathematics, engineering and technology). National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B., & Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students' science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), n2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grumbine, R. (2010). Using data-collection activities to enrich science courses. The American Biology Teacher, 72(6), 369–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1316–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsh, J. A., & Schmitt-Harsh, M. (2016). Instructional strategies to develop graphing skills in the college science classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 78(1), 49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsh, J. A., Maltese, A. V., & Warner, J. M. (2013). The development of expertise in data analysis skills: An exploration of the cognitive and metacognitive processes by which scientists and students construct graphs. In American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) national meeting, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsh, J. A., Campillo, M., Murray, C., Myers, C., Nguyen, J., & Maltese, A. V. (2019). “Seeing” data like an expert: An eye-tracking study using graphical data representations. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2011), 446–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01150.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskins, S. G., Stevens, L. M., & Nehm, R. H. (2007). Selective use of the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratory. Genetics, 176(3), 1381–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kastens, K. A., Krumhansel, R., & Baker, I. (2015). Thinking big—Transitioning your students from working with small, student-collected data sets towards “big data”. Science Teacher, 82(5), 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellman, P. J. (2000). An update on gestalt psychology. In B. Landau, J. Sabini, J. Jonides, & E. Newport (Eds.), Perception, cognition, and language: Essays in honor of Henry and Lila Gleitman. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, C. K., Fleming-Davies, A., & White, P. J. (2019). The figure of the day: A classroom activity to improve Students' figure creation skills in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 81(5), 317–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjelvik, M. K., & Schultheis, E. H. (2019). Getting messy with authentic data: Exploring the potential of using data from scientific research to support student data literacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), es2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konold, C., Higgins, T., Russell, S. J., & Khalil, K. (2014). Data seen through different lenses. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(3), 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Romberg, T. (1996). Exploring children's data modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 69–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Developing model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble. (2007). Contrasting emerging conceptions of distribution in contexts of error and natural variation. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data. New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810057

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maltese, A. V., Harsh, J. A., & Svetina, D. (2015). Data visualization literacy: Investigating data interpretation along the novice—Expert continuum. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(1), 84–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martone, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1332–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, J. (2010). Teaching and assessing graphing using active learning. MathAMATYC Educator, 1(2), 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. D. (2006). Implications of evidence-centered design for educational testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 6–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J., & McDuffie, A. R. (2009). Connecting science and mathematics: Using inquiry investigations to learn about data collection, analysis, and display. School Science and Mathematics, 109(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and Design of Educational Assessment. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2003). BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11625

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18802

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2016). Ten big ideas. https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas/

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For States, by States. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, M. J. (1990). The science process skills. Research Matters-to the science Teacher, 9004. https://narst.org/researchmatters/science-process-skills

  • Padilla, M. J., McKenzie, D. L., & Shaw, E. L. (1986). An examination of the line graphing ability of students in grades seven through twelve. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, L. M., Creem-Regehr, S. H., Hegarty, M., et al. (2018). Decision making with visualizations: A cognitive framework across disciplines. Cognitive Research, 3, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-018-0120-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, T. F., & Leonard, J. G. (2005). Turning spreadsheets into graphs: An information technology lesson in whole brain thinking. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 17(1), 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelaez, N.J., Anderson, T.R., Gardner, S. M., Yin, Y., Abraham, J. K., Bartlett, E., Gormally, C., Hill, J. P., Hoover, M., Hurney, C., Long, T., Newman, D.L., Sirum, K., & Stevens, M. (2017). The basic competencies of biological experimentation: Concept-skill statements (PIBERG Instructional Innovation Material Paper 4). Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/pibergiim/4. Accessed 18 Oct 2021.

  • Picone, C., Rhode, J., Hyatt, L., & Parshall, T. (2007). Assessing gains in undergraduate students’ abilities to analyze graphical data. Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology, 5(July), 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M. (2013). Undoing decontextualization or how scientists come to understand their own data/graphs. Science Education, 97(1), 80–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 159–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science Education, 81, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rougier, N. P., Droettboom, M., & Bourne, P. E. (2014). Ten simple rules for better figures. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(9), e1003833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rybarczyk, B. (2011). Visual literacy in biology: A comparison of visual representations in textbooks and journal articles. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(1), 106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schriger, D. L., & Cooper, R. J. (2001). Achieving graphical excellence: Suggestions and methods for creating high-quality visual displays of experimental data. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 37(1), 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schriger, D. L., Sinha, R., Schroter, S., Liu, P. Y., & Altman, D. G. (2006). From submission to publication: A retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 48(6), 750-6, 756.e1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.06.017. Epub 2006 Sep 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultheis, E. H., & Kjelvik, M. K. (2015). Data nuggets: Bringing real data into the classroom to unearth students’ quantitative & inquiry skills. The American Biology Teacher, 77(1), 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultheis, E. H., & Kjelvik, M. K. (2020). Using messy, authentic data to promote data literacy and reveal the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 82(7), 439–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, P., & Freedman, E. G. (2011). Bar and line graph comprehension: An interaction of top-down and bottom-up processes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 560–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Rochelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tairab, H. H., & Khalaf Al-Naqbi, A. K. (2004). How do secondary school science students interpret and construct scientific graphs? Journal of Biological Education, 38(3), 127–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(5), 357–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Word. In L. Vygotsky, E. Hanfmann, & G. Vakar (Eds.), Thought and language (Studies in Communication) (pp. 119–153). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-007

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weissgerber, T. L., Milic, N. M., Winham, S. J., & Garovic, V. D. (2015). Beyond bar and line graphs: Time for a new data presentation paradigm. PLoS Biology, 13(4), e1002128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weissgerber, T. L., Winham, S. J., Heinzen, E. P., Milin-Lazovic, J. S., Garcia-Valencia, O., Bukumiric, Z., Savic, M. D., Garovic, V. D., & Milic, N. M. (2019). Reveal, Don’t conceal: Transforming data visualization to improve transparency. Circulation, 140, 1506–1518. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. (1998). Ensuring authentic performance. Chapter 2. In Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance (pp. 21–42). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). What is backward design? In Understanding by design (1st ed., pp. 7–19). Merrill Prentice Hall. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20160721163755/http://www.fitnyc.edu/files/pdfs/Backward_design.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild, C. J., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry. Statistical Review, 67, 223–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work benefited from the research on graph construction in undergraduate biology conducted under NSF # 1726180 (SMG) and the collaborations and opportunities within the ACE-Bio Network (NSF # 1346567). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We are grateful to Julia Gouvea for her helpful feedback on this chapter. Many thanks to the members of the Purdue International Biology Education Research Group (PIBERG) and the James Madison University Biology Education Research Group (jmuBERG) for their valuable feedback and assistance over the years. In addition, we would like to acknowledge Adam Maltese and Mikaela Schmitt-Harsh for their significant contributions to multiple projects included here. We are also grateful to the students and faculty who contributed their time to our respective work.

CRediT Author Contribution Statement

All authors contributed equally to: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing, Visualization. SMG contributed to: Supervision.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Stephanie M. Gardner

  2. Department of Biology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Aakanksha Angra

  3. Office of Medical Education, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Aakanksha Angra

  4. Department of Biology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

    Joseph A. Harsh

Authors
  1. Stephanie M. Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aakanksha Angra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph A. Harsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie M. Gardner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Biology Education Area, Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University West Lafayette, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Nancy J. Pelaez

  2. Biology Education Area, Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University West Lafayette, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Stephanie M. Gardner

  3. Divisions of Chemical Education and Biochemistry, Department of Chemistry, Purdue University West Lafayette, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Trevor R. Anderson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gardner, S.M., Angra, A., Harsh, J.A. (2022). A Framework for Teaching and Learning Graphing in Undergraduate Biology. In: Pelaez, N.J., Gardner, S.M., Anderson, T.R. (eds) Trends in Teaching Experimentation in the Life Sciences. Contributions from Biology Education Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98592-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98592-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-98591-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-98592-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation