Skype+Notes


 * MEETING SCHEDULE AND NOTES:**

- Code common set of top 10 Google images (Kristen will send). Everyone will rate independently in order to establish IRR. - Post thoughts, resources, questions, etc., for known misconceptions about carbon cycle. - Laurel - please post references from Andy's group (or other) about learning progressions and carbon?
 * __3/22/11 at 2:15pm__**

__**Notes, 3/15/11 (tml):**__ Coding Rubric: - Added category "Land use" as process.

Research questions/directions? - Is there a connection between our characterization of an image and its relationship to a place on a learning progression continuum? Do certain images meet criteria for expected knowledge/understanding for students at different places in a LP? - How do the images we have coded fit with what is known about students' misconceptions about carbon/carbon-cycling? Are some images reflecting and/or reinforcing known misconceptions?

To Do: - 1. Kristen will construct master file with top 50 images from Google search on "carbon cycle". These should already be coded within our image set. - 2. Establish initial data on IRR. Kristen will send an excel sheet with the top 10 images (from item #1). Everyone will code these independently before our meeting next Tuesday. We will discuss patterns at the Tuesday meeting. - 3. Tammy will add a page to the wiki for resources about known carbon misconceptions. Everyone will contribute info, refs, questions, etc., prior to the next meeting. - 4. Laurel will upload papers or refs about carbon cycle learning progressions.

__For next time:__ -complete coding for original set of 10 assigned web images

Discussion of Rubric: - Users agreed that the modified rubric is much simpler than previous versions. - Additional modification: drop "mineralization" as a specific process to target in coding. This is on the basis of our conclusion that mineralization is included within the process of "decomposition". Unlike "respiration", it does not warrant its own, stand-alone category. If and when it appears, include in notes section of rubric.
 * __Notes, 2/15/11(tml):__**

Revisit Focus: - Primary goal at outset was to characterize images used in intro bio instruction. Our focus on the development of a simple coding rubric for carbon cycle will allow us to objectively compare multiple representations of a single biological process. Our coding scheme will allow us to quantify specific characteristics present/absent in these images. Characteristics of particular interest to us are those known to be related to specific student misconceptions (see Carbon Cycle Misconceptions page). For example, a known misconception among students is that "plants photosynthesize; animals respire". Our coding data will allow us to ask how frequently the process of "plant respiration" is explicitly represented as a process in an image of the carbon cycle.

Planning and Future Directions: - 1. ESA Abstract: Due Feb. 24. We will use the existing data (35 images coded) as baseline data for the ESA abstract. - 2. Paper? Yes. However, I think we need to accomplish the following prior to writing a paper: a) establish inter-rater reliability among raters, b) expand our base of images to include textbook representations, c) identify the appropriate context in which to frame the question (e.g., visual literacy, carbon misconceptions, others??). - 3. Grant proposal? Yes. Let's discuss the possibility of a TUES, Type 2, Collaborative. Why not Type 1? a) Type 1 affords very few resources to work with, particularly if spread out across more than 1 institution. b) Type 2 Collaborative allows each institution to submit their own budget with an associated PI for that institution. The proposal would define a single question/focus that frames the research, but each PI can decide what specific question/contribution he/she would pursue under that umbrella.

Tasks: - Contribute writing, refs that will help shape the ESA abstract. I will add a page specifically for the abstract. - Continue working to apply coding rubric to all images in your assigned set. *During the meeting, we had said everyone complete at least 5 per person asap. After our connection failed, we decided this was not necessary, as we currently have data for 35 models - this will be sufficient for the first round of the abstract. - Identify textbooks and other sources of images to include in the sample. - Think about desired sample attributes? (e.g., number, diversity of sources, etc.). how many from web, textbooks, other sources (e.g., IPCC) do we need overall? Are we aiming for an equal number from each source? are there other criteria we are applying to the set of images we ultimately define as our sample?

Next meeting: ? Scheduling constraints for many participants. Follow-up via e-mail.

__**Notes, 2/8/11:**__ We further refined the taxonomy for classifying the images. The following changes were made: Collapse autotrophic fixation with the photosynthesis Collapse decay into decomposition column Expand respiration to have a plant, animal, soil/microorganism Changing implicit/explicit to be does it have a picture, arrow, label For the cycle question,"Is a cycle represented?" Answer yes, if an arrow goes from on pool into another and eventually ends up in the same pool. We have moved to a 1, 0 coding scheme to help with analysis later.

- For next time: Apply modified rubric to images from your assigned set. For the next meeting, we will be reevaluating the images that we have already evaluated and finishing up the rest of our sets. Plan to discuss the utility of the revised rubric. Next meeting: Tues. 2/15/11 at 2:15pm EST.

Members found that the current coding scheme was difficult to use. It was decided to recode the pools into: atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere, with a click box for each about whether or not the pool is implicit and a list of the terms used in the illustration (telling us the explicit). We will have a similar system for processes/fluxes, and lastly a series of yes/no questions. There will be an additional column about context. Members should look at the URL that their image comes from and take note of the context. If the image is being used for an ancillary topic from the global carbon cycle, the member will exclude it from the classification. There will also be a new column for people to note any qualities of the image that convey nonexplicit information about the carbon cycle. The MSU team will put together a new scoring taxonomy/Excel sheet. To create this in a Google Doc and connect it to the Wiki.
 * __Notes, 1/25/11:__**

-MSU group will be making a template based on feedback during meeting.

- For next time: Members will analyze 1-3 images from list that Kristen sent out before meeting


 * [BioImages Members - if you have notes for intervening (pre-wiki) meetings, please add here. I only have notes from meeting 1.] **

__**Meeting 1, 10/8/10:**__ Our collaborative project will rigorously examine a subset of standard representations commonly used in introductory biology courses. We aim to: 1) categorize and quantify characteristics in the representation of biological information that could be problematic or misleading for novice learners, and 2) survey students in our courses and/or colleagues in our departments to elicit their thinking about the biological information represented in 1 or more of these representations.

Our project will provide quantitative data about the way information is portrayed in standard representations commonly used in introductory biology instruction and shed insight into the way students view and interact with these representations.

As an agenda for tomorrow, I will attempt to capture Tammy's thoughts:

1) Introductions and specific research interests related to visual representations (< 2 minutes/person) 2) Revisit the stated goals in the proposal 3) Identify types of representations (e.g. carbon cycle models, chromosome visualizations, etc.) that will be the nuclei for a subset of this group. Organize into these smaller groups. 4) For the next meeting: a) Summary sheet to share with whole group that provides the smaller group's b) relevant literature c) images d) rubric/categorization of the figures/images e) draft of questions that could be given to students/faculty

Jenni – interest in ecology; particularly C cycle, food webs

Zane - works with Randy Phyllis, Clement - using mental models in intro - have constructed 2-d diagrams of processes (cell signal, transduction) use of high-res images in text vs. more simple diagram – which is most useful in helping students

Laurel – interest w/models in DQC, c-cycle – how can models be continued at different scales (e.g., metabolism) -peeves w/models, e.g., pred-prey - students building own models

Stephen – - background in illustration - coming from perspective of visual communication, not necessarily - how to reduce subject anxiety through illustration - design a rubric for how you design/assess illustration

Jenni – case study approach to cycles in texts, in lit – no basis for how to evaluate - rubric for evaluating image efficacy Laurel – connecting across scales – C cycles, connecting to psn/resp

might be converging on common theme of carbon cycles? hit on from multiple fronts, ranging from textbook analysis to students’ construction of mental models.

- visual literacy not typical in context of intro instruction – good to keep in mind - what are models – how are they representations (or not) of reality?

To get started: - collect images from multiple sources about C cycle across scales - cycles, as well as psn and resp - broad

Jenni: Freeman text, Stephen: Environmental Sci texts Laurel: Ecology texts Zane: web search, focus on molecular end Informal lit – e.g., newspapers, magazines, YouTube, songs? Formal lit - journals flat vs. moving images?