Is science me? High school students' identities,participation and aspirations in science,engineering, and medicine

This study follows an ethnically and economically diverse sample of 33 high school students to explore why some who were once very interested in science, engineering, or medicine (SEM) majors or careers decided to leave the pipeline in high school while others persisted. Through longitudinal interviews and surveys, students shared narratives about their developing science identities, SEM participation and aspirations. In analysis, three groups emerged (High Achieving Persisters, Low Achieving Persisters, and Lost Potentials), each experiencing different interactions and experiences within science communities of practice in and outside of school and within the extended family. These different microclimates framed students' perceptions of their SEM study, abilities, career options, and expected success, thereby shaping their science identities and consequent SEM trajectories. School science was often hard and discouraging; there were very few science advocates at school or home; and meaningful opportunities to work with real science professionals were scarce, even in schools with science or health academies. Students expressed positive attitudes toward science and non‐science pursuits where they experienced success and received support from important people in their lives. Results underscore the key role communities of practice play in career and identity development and suggest a need for interventions to help socializers better understand the value and purpose of science literacy themselves so as to encourage students to appreciate science, be aware of possible career options in science and enjoy learning and doing science. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 564–582, 2010     

Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Toward a social practice view of scientific representation practices

Using graphs is a key social practice of professional science. As part of a research program that investigates the development of graphing practices from elementary school to professional science activities, this study was designed to investigate similarities and differences in graph‐related interpretations between scientists and college students engaged in collective graph interpretation. Forty‐five students in a second‐year university ecology course and four scientists participated in the study. Guided by domain‐ specific concerns, scientists' graph‐related activities were characterized by a large number of experience‐based, domain‐specific interpretive resources and practices. Students' group based activities were characterized by the lack of linguistic distinctions (between scientific terms) which led to ambiguities in group negotiations; there was also a lack of knowledge about specific organism populations which helped field ecologists construct meaning. Many students learned to provide correct answers to specific graphing questions but did not come to make linguistic distinctions or increase their knowledge of specific populations. In the absence of concerns other than to do well in the course, students did not appear to develop any general interpretive skills for graphs, but learned instead to apply the professor's interpretation. This is problematic because, as we have demonstrated, there are widely differing viable interpretations of the graph. Suggestions for changes in learning environments for graphing that should alleviate this problem are made. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 36: 1020–1043, 1999     

Multi-joint rate of force development testing protocol affects reliability and the smallest detectible difference

Isometric tests have been used to assess rate of force development (RFD), however variation in testing methodologies are known to affect performance outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the RFD in the isometric squat (ISqT) using two test protocols and two testing angles. Eleven participants (age: 26.8 ± 4.5 years, strength training experience: 7.1 ± 3.03 years) completed test and retest sessions one week apart, whereby two test protocols with respect to duration and instructions were compared. Isometric peak force (ISqT^peak) and isometric explosive force (ISqT^exp) tests were assessed at two joint angles (knee flexion angle 100° and 125°). Force-time traces were sampled and subsequently analysed for RFD measures. Average and instantaneous RFD variables did not meet reliability minimum criteria in ISqT^peak at 100° or 125°. The ISqT^exp test at 100° met reliability criteria in the RFD 0–200 and 0–250ms variables. The ISqT^exp test at 125° met reliability criteria in the RFD 0–150, 0–200 and 0–250ms variables. Force-time characteristics were optimized at the higher knee joint angle. Average and instantaneous RFD measures obtained using a traditional peak force test do not meet basic reliability criteria. Researchers assessing multi-joint RFD should employ the explosive RFD test protocol as opposed to the traditional isometric peak force protocol.