Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 349

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Developing a multi‐year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio‐ecological systems

Mohan, Lindsey, Chen, Jing, Anderson, Charles W.·2009·Journal of Research in Science Teaching
DOI 10.1002/tea.20314
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study reports on our steps toward achieving a conceptually coherent and empirically validated learning progression for carbon cycling in socio‐ecological systems. It describes an iterative process of designing and analyzing assessment and interview data from students in upper elementary through high school. The product of our development process—the learning progression itself—is a story about how learners from upper elementary grades through high school develop understanding in an important and complex domain: biogeochemical processes that transform carbon in socio‐ecological systems at multiple scales. These processes: (a) generate organic carbon (photosynthesis), (b) transform organic carbon (biosynthesis, digestion, food webs, carbon sequestration), and (c) oxidize organic carbon (cellular respiration, combustion). The primary cause of global climate change is the current worldwide imbalance among these processes. We identified Levels of Achievement, which described patterns in the way students made progress toward more sophisticated reasoning about these processes. Younger learners perceived a world where events occurred at a macroscopic scale and carbon sources, such as foods and fuels, were treated as enablers of life processes and combustion rather than sources of matter transformed by those processes. Students at the transitional levels—levels 2 and 3—traced matter in terms of materials changed by hidden mechanisms (level 2) or changed by chemical processes (level 3). More advanced students (level 4) used chemical models to trace matter through hierarchically organized systems that connected organisms and inanimate matter. Although level 4 reasoning is consistent with current national standards, few high school students reasoned this way consistently. We discuss further plans for conceptual and empirical validation of the learning progression. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 675–698, 2009

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.20314

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 349

Metadata

Authors
Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W.
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-07-07
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
675-698
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
DOI
10.1002/tea.20314
OpenAlex
W2057610770
Cited by
349
References
37
FWCI
87.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.