Journal of Agricultural Education Volume 52, Number 1, pp. 85–95 DOI: 10.5032/jae.2011.01085 Impact of Gender, Ethnicity, Year in School, Social Economic Status, and State Standardized Assessment Scores on Student Content Knowledge Achievement When Using Vee Maps as a Formative Assessment Tool Andrew C. Thoron, Assistant Professor University of Illinois Brian E. Myers, Associate Professor, Associate Chair University of Florida The National Research Council has recognized the challenge of assessing laboratory investigation and called for the investigation of assessments that are proven through sound research-based studies. The Vee map provides a framework that allows the learners to conceptualize their previous knowledge as they develop success in meaningful learning when they utilize the Vee map to guide their thinking and the process of experimentation. Previous research has shown that using the Vee map as a formative assessment tool positively affects student content knowledge. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of student demographic variables on student content knowledge achievement when using the Vee map as a formative assessment tool. The population of this quasi-experimental, counter-balance design study was composed of students at nine high schools that offered agriscience education. The results of this study indicated the Vee map is unbiased based on gender, grade, and ethnicity. It was also concluded that the Vee map does not provide either remedial or non–remedial readers with a significant advantage, thus allowing the assessment to focus on the content rather than a student’s reading ability. Keywords: agriscience, vee map, assessment, formative assessment, demographics Introduction willingness to provide agricultural education as an integrated science in the secondary The secondary level of the United States educational curricula (Myers, Thoron, & educational system has adopted higher Thompson, 2009). graduation requirements in the areas of English, However, in the early twenty–first century, math, and science. As a result, many states No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation has experienced a shift of focus toward the core remained a driving factor in measuring student content areas and experienced an increase in achievement (USDE, 2009). In 2000, 82% of the overall assessment scores through the 1990s nation’s twelfth graders performed below the (USDE, 2009). Progression of student driven proficient level on the National Assessment of achievement during the 1990s led to the Education Progress (NAEP) science assessment. establishment of academic standards and goals, The document stated, “the longer students stay and the National Center for Education Statistics in the current system the worse they do. (NCES) reported stable performance in the According to the 1995 Third International science and math subjects and modest gains in Mathematics and Science Study, U.S. fourth reading (USDE, 2000). This focus prompted graders ranked second. By twelfth grade, they agricultural education to conduct several studies fell to 16th…” (USDE, p.1). to demonstrate the science connections in Stagnant and lowering scores in science agricultural education and the teachers’ achievement have caused concern throughout 85 Thoron & Myers Impact of Gender… the nation. The USDE (2009, paragraph 13) 2008). Thoron and Myers also reported that stated, “Researchers have scientifically proven teachers are challenged with the amount of time the best ways to teach reading. We must do the spent grading laboratory reports and that may same in science. America’s teachers must use lead to fewer experiments being conducted or no only research–based teaching methods and the assessment of student learning during schools must reject unproven fads.” Educational laboratories. Laboratory reports remain useful, researchers have responded to the call by NCLB but teachers are essentially assessing the and the USDE. There have been numerous students’ abilities to follow directions, collect efforts to improve teaching and learning in the data, and provide the correct answers to secondary setting (Atkin & Coffey, 2003). conclusion questions (Novak & Gowin, 1984) Continued efforts to provide research–based and fail to develop deep understanding because evidence have produced research in the areas of students are immersed in the steps and writing teaching and learning with experimental designs required to complete the laboratory report and based on standardized testing (Anderson, 2002). turn the report in to receive a grade (Lebowitz, One specific way, identified by the National 1998). Furthermore, Novak, Gowin, and Research Council (NRC), to increase student Johansen (1983) stated that a deepened performance and scientific knowledge is by epistemological structure can be created by shifting a greater focus to hands–on (laboratory) students engaged in quality laboratories with instruction in the science curriculum (NRC, proper assessments. Therefore, examination of 1996, 2000). Laboratory investigation is widely empirical evidence supportive of an alternative accepted as good educational practice (Baker, to the laboratory report is the focus of this study. Thoron, Myers, & Cody, 2008; Esche, 2006; Baxter, Shavelson, Goldman, and Pine Ornstein, 2006) and teaching agriculture in a (1992) stated that dissatisfaction of current laboratory setting has been an integral part of assessments, advances in research on cognition agricultural education for many years (Winslow, and instruction, and reforms in science curricula 1891). Osborne’s (1994) publication built upon continue to lead alternative assessment measures this foundation and placed a greater emphasis on for experiments. Shavelson, Baxter, and Pine teaching using experiments in the agriscience (1991) stated that continued focus on context. Diederen, Gruppen, Hartog, and constructivism lends itself to finding alternative Voragen (2006) noted that one of the benefits of meaningful assessments. The authors stated that laboratory instruction is its use as a means to educational research should focus on educational increase a student’s understanding and ability to measures that go beyond correct responses to apply knowledge. reports and focus on conceptual understanding, While hands-on laboratory experience has problem-solving, and application. been accepted as good teaching, finding Gowin’s (1979) Vee map is an assessment assessments that are meaningful to the learner tool that can aid in the development of deeper and user-friendly to the teacher remains a student understanding and a time-friendly challenge (Thoron & Myers, 2010). The formative assessment for teachers to utilize National Research Council recognized the during laboratory investigations (Roehrig, Luft, challenge of assessing laboratory investigation & Edwards, 2001). The Vee map is a scaffolding and called for the investigation of assessments tool that applies Kolb’s (1984) model of that are proven through sound research-based experiential learning and allows for student studies (NRC, 1996). Driver (1995) stated that manipulation of experiments (Thoron & Myers, interventions and expectations set by the 2010). The Vee map does not just require teachers promote understanding and those knowledge recall of an experiment, but requires expectations are communicated through students to formulate a question of investigation, assessment techniques. identify key terms, include steps of Thoron and Myers (2010) stated that investigations, create graphic organizers, laboratory reports are commonplace during incorporate data tables, and draw conclusions laboratory experiments. However, once students upon the student guided investigation (See create a laboratory report teachers have the time- Figure 1). The Vee map may be used in place of consuming task of grading and commenting on a traditional laboratory report (Roehrig et al., the lengthy reports (Thoron, Swindle, & Myers, Journal of Agricultural Education 86 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011 Thoron & Myers Impact of Gender… 2001) when appropriate at the formative and summative levels (Thoron & Myers, 2007). VeeMap Components Inquiry Question: The question under investigation, this may be given to the student, depending on the level of inquiry Word List:Student identifies words deemed important Conclusion: to the experiment. What is the big picture? What knowledge was developed? What still need to be developed? Concept Map or Graphic Organizer: May be developed in a different program and placed in the section to graphically represent the student’s understanding of concepts of the experiment. Data (in table, chart, or graph form): Results of the experiment; represented in a table, chart, or graphical form. Hypothesis: Statement of intended outcome Steps: Depending on the level of inquiry, this may be very important so other student could replicate the study. The steps should be able to be followed successfully by others. Figure 1 (Adapted from Gowin, 1979). Vee Map Components. . Laboratories in secondary school agriscience Thoron and Myers (2010) conducted a study classrooms are in need of modernizing that compared the Vee map and the laboratory assessment techniques that are suited for report. In their study conducted with Florida investigation and shift the focus away from only introduction to agriscience students (n = 268) it assessing if the student followed the correct was reported that there was a significant procedure (Millar, 2004). Edwards, Luft, Potter, difference in student content knowledge and Roehrig (1999) found that students learned achievement scores between groups. Students more when they designed and carried out their receiving the Vee map out performed their own investigation. Emphasis can be shifted counterparts each time during the experimental away from conducting experiments simply to try counter-balance design. Thus, Thoron and to develop the “correct” answer by: (a) focusing Myers found the Vee map to have a positive on student-applied scientific concepts, (b) impact on student content knowledge; however, explaining the methods of the experiment, and further examination of additional variables could (c) drawing clear conclusions from authentic lead to better understanding how the Vee map results that are easily graded and provide impacts students based on gender, ethnicity, feedback to the learners more quickly (NRC, state standardized tests, grade, and social 2006). A Vee map can offer solutions for this economic status. type of constructivist learning. Journal of Agricultural Education 87 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011 Thoron & Myers Impact of Gender… Theoretical Framework the use of graphic organizers and guides students to draw upon empirical data to form conclusions Ausubel's (1963) learning theory acted as a and recommendations. Finally, employing team guide for this study. Ausubel places a central work through laboratory investigations and emphasis on learners' prior knowledge and the asking student opinions of their utilization of the influence created on meaningful learning. formative assessment tools bring all the goals “Meaningful learning results when a person outlined in the NRC report into this study. consciously and explicitly ties new knowledge to relevant concepts or proposition they already Purpose and Objectives possess” (Novak, Gowin, & Johansen, 1983, p. 625). Ausubel stated there is interplay between The purpose of this study was to compare affective learning and cognitive learning and he the impact of student demographic variables on built his theory for the meaning of each concept. student content knowledge achievement when Ausubel identified seven concepts along a using the Vee map as a formative assessment continuum. Each concept builds on the previous tool. The specific objectives guiding the study that takes the learner from incorporation of were to: information verbatim, to building knowledge and linking the relevant concepts together. As a 1. Determine the impact of gender on student result, learning becomes “less rote” and “more content knowledge achievement when using meaningful” through the planned instructional a Vee map. practice that supports learners. Novak (1980) 2. Determine the impact of ethnicity on student stated that in order for learners to be successful content knowledge achievement when using in this theory the material must be inherently a Vee map. meaningful, the learner must link new 3. Determine the impact of grade level on knowledge with existing and relevant student content knowledge achievement knowledge, and the learner must know relevant when using a Vee map. concepts involved in the scientific investigation. 4. Determine the impact of social economic The Vee map provides the frame work that status on student content knowledge allows the learners to form the basis of achievement when using a Vee map. Ausubel's learning theory as they develop 5. Determine the impact of a state standardized success in meaningful learning when they test on student content knowledge develop the Vee map as a diagram of their achievement when using a Vee map. thinking and process of experimentation. The Vee map provides a structure for students to The null hypothesis, H : There is no o exhibit their scientific foundation, investigate significant difference in student content without following a laboratory verbatim, and knowledge achievement based on gender, have the ability to incorporate their previous ethnicity, grade level, social economic status, knowledge. and state standardized test when using the Vee America’s Lab Report (NRC, 2006) outlined map as a formative assessment tool. goals for laboratory experiences in educational settings. These goals served as the framework of Procedures the study. Goal one is to enhance mastery of subject matter. The study’s objective was to This study is part of a larger study compare the impact on content knowledge conducted by Thoron and Myers (2010). achievement of two different formative Thoron and Myers reported the population of assessments in laboratory instruction. this quasi-experimental, counter-balance design Developing scientific reasoning is another goal study was composed of students at nine Florida in the report. The Vee map is a tool specially high schools that offered agriscience education designed to develop the scientific thinking skills (N = 291). Each participating high school of the learners (Gowin, 1979). Goal three is for agriscience program was required to have two students to exhibit connections between sections of Introduction to Agriscience. Schools laboratory experiences and empirical work. The were then purposively selected by a panel of Vee map quantifies student experience through experts on the capacity to integrate science into Journal of Agricultural Education 88 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011 Thoron & Myers Impact of Gender… the curriculum. The Vee map is referred to as laboratory and Vee map reports. Upon the treatment and the comparison (control) was completion of the tutorial, teachers received determined to be the laboratory report. The order continuing professional development credit. in which the intact groups received the treatment Each teacher taught the selected lessons for four and comparison was determined randomly. Ary, weeks. Based from the study of Thoron and Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010) stated that a Myers (2010) it was determined that the counter-balance design is appropriate for use intervention was not fully administered if a with intact groups. A counter-balanced design student missed 25% or more of instruction in the provides the ability to rotate out any differences unit. Therefore, students missing more than four that might exist between groups (Ary, Jacobs, & days of school during the study period were Sorensen, 2010). removed from the data set. Each student was administered a pretest to Twenty–nine students were removed from establish a base line before each replication to the study due to missing 25% or more of the measure content knowledge in the subject matter instructional unit. Thus the original sample was being taught (soil science) and served as a narrowed to n = 268. All replications contained covariate measure. All sections were taught the two lessons and before the lessons were taught a same subject matter content by the same teacher pretest was given to serve as a covariate to and taught using the same teaching techniques adjust for achievement prior to the treatment. and methods. Control section participants Analysis for each objective utilized a covariate completed the laboratory report outlined by technique to analyze the data. Following the Osborne (1994) in his text Biological completion of data collection, posttest score Applications in Agricultural Education means for each treatment, regardless of following the completion of a laboratory replication, were calculated (Ary et al., 2010). activity. Participants in the treatment group completed the Vee map. Following the data Findings analysis procedure for counter balanced design suggested by Ary et al.(2010), column means The first objective sought to determine the were calculated for each treatment. Those means impact of gender on student content knowledge were then compared using a univariate analysis achievement when using a Vee map. The of covariance. analysis of the data for this objective was guided Pretest and posttest instruments were by the null hypothesis that there is no significant developed by the researchers using content difference in student content knowledge knowledge questions in the form of thirty achievement based on gender. All scores were multiple choice items. The instruments based out of a possible score of 100. Following contained a specific number of questions based the first replication, males reported a posttest upon the determined percentage of time to be score of 69.03 (SD = 16.65) on posttest 1 and spent teaching each objective of the unit. The females reported a posttest score of 64.43 (SD = testing instruments were validated by a panel of 17.99) on posttest 1 (See Table 1). This agriscience education experts from a state land difference in posttest scores was found to not be grant university and were determined to be statistically significant, F(234.44) = 2.91, p = valid. The posttest questions were asked in a .09, r2 = .13. Following the second replication, randomly selected order to reduce testing effect males reported a posttest score of 63.42 (SD = (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Test–retest 17.99) on posttest 2 and females reported a reliability was determined with a summated test posttest score of 67.91 (SD = 16.59) on posttest score mean of 74.4% for test one and 63.6% for 2. This difference in posttest scores was also test two. Reliability coefficients for the found to not be statistically significant, knowledge level assessments were .99 and .99, F(234.25) = 3.49, p = .06, r2 = .13. No respectively. statistically significant differences were found in To help control for teacher variance, each the replications, thus the null hypothesis failed school had a counter balance design and each to be rejected. teacher participated in a tutorial which explained teaching techniques, format and structure of the Table 1 Journal of Agricultural Education 89 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011 Thoron & Myers Impact of Gender… Posttest Scores of Vee Map by Gender (n = 268). Mean Test Score Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Gender M SD n M SD n Male 63.43 17.99 157 69.03 16.65 157 Female 67.91 16.59 111 64.43 17.99 111 The second objective sought to determine statistically significant, F(189.22) = 1.069, p = the impact of ethnicity on student content .36, r2 = .08. Following the second replication knowledge achievement when using a Vee map. and completion of posttest 2, black students The analysis of the data for this objective was reported a posttest score of 67.84 (SD = 16.99) guided by the null hypothesis that there is no on posttest 2, Hispanic students reported a significant difference in student content posttest score of 65.05 (SD = 15.44), white knowledge achievement based on ethnicity. students reported a posttest score of 67.38 (SD = Following the first replication on posttest 1, 17.85), and students that were self-identified as black students reported a posttest score of 63.27 other scored 71.25 (SD = 20.14). This difference (SD = 14.91), Hispanic students reported a in posttest scores were found not to be posttest score of 65.88 (SD = 18.35), white statistically significant, F(180.84) = 0.58, p = student reported a posttest score of 65.18 (SD = .63, r2 = .07. No statistically significant 17.81), and students that self-identified as other differences were found in the replications, thus scored 82.25 (SD = 14.15) (See Table 2). This the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. difference in posttest scores was found not to be Table 2 Posttest Scores of Vee Map by Ethnicity (n = 268). Mean Test Score Ethnicity Posttest 1 Posttest 2 M SD n M SD n Black 63.27 14.91 37 67.84 16.99 37 Hispanic 65.88 18.35 43 65.05 15.44 43 White 65.18 17.81 184 67.38 17.85 184 Other 82.25 14.15 4 71.25 20.14 4 The third objective sought to determine the Following the second replication and completion impact of grade level (year in school) on student of posttest 2, ninth graders reported a posttest content knowledge achievement when using a score of 65.72 (SD = 18.17), tenth grade Vee map. The analysis of the data for this students reported a posttest score of 70.09 (SD = objective was guided by the null hypothesis that 14.99), eleventh grade students reported a there is no significant difference in student posttest score of 69.46 (SD = 17.91), and twelfth content knowledge achievement based on grade grade students scored 65.09 (SD = 12.79). This level. Following the first replication and difference in posttest scores were found not to submission of posttest 1, ninth grade students be statistically significant, F(217.34) = 1.75, p = reported a posttest score of 65.91 (SD = 17.19), .16, r2 = .13. No statistically significant tenth grade students reported a posttest score of differences were found in the replications, thus 62.67 (SD = 18.82), eleventh grade students the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. reported a posttest score of 63.77 (SD = 17.52), and twelfth grade students scored 73.64 (SD = 14.10) (See Table 3). This difference in posttest scores was found not to be statistically significant, F(229.17) = 1.28, p = .28, r2 = .09. Table 3 Journal of Agricultural Education 90 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011 Thoron & Myers Impact of Gender… Posttest Scores of Vee Map by Grade (n = 268). Mean Test Score Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Grade level M SD n M SD n 9th 65.97 17.19 164 65.72 18.17 164 10th 62.67 18.82 58 70.09 14.99 58 11th 63.77 17.52 35 69.46 17.92 35 12th 73.64 14.01 11 65.09 12.79 11 The fourth objective sought to determine the of 73.20 (SD = 13.18), students eligible to impact of social economic status (SES), through participate in the free lunch program reported a the use of the school lunch program guidelines, posttest score of 60.67 (SD = 18.12) (See Table on student content knowledge achievement 4). This difference in posttest scores was found when using a Vee map. The free and reduced to be statistically significant, F(253.83) = 5.434, school lunch program (FRSLP) was used as a p = .01, r2 = .25. Following the second proxy to SES based on the work of Stone and replication and completion of posttest 2, students Lane (2003) that described linkage between SES not eligible to participate in the lunch program and ability to participate in a state’s FRSLP on reported a posttest score of 68.87 (SD = 17.72), student performance. The analysis of the data for students eligible for a reduced lunch reported a this objective was guided by the null hypothesis posttest score of 69.73 (SD = 14.17), and that there is no significant difference in student students eligible for a free lunch reported a content knowledge achievement based on SES. posttest score of 61.70 (SD = 17.15). This Following the first replication and submission of difference in posttest scores were found to be posttest 1, students not eligible to participate in statistically significant, F(239.96) = 3.29, p = the school lunch (reduced or free) program .04, r2 = .20 Statistically significant differences reported a posttest score of 65.32 (SD = 17.61), were found; thus the null hypothesis was students eligible to participate in the reduced rejected. school lunch program reported a posttest score Table 4 Posttest Scores of Vee Map by SES (n = 268). Mean Test Score Ability to participate in Posttest 1 Posttest 2 the lunch program M SD n M SD n Not able to participate 65.32 17.60 158 68.87 17.72 158 Reduced lunch 73.20 13.18 40 69.73 14.17 40 Free lunch 60.67 18.12 70 61.70 17.15 70 The fifth objective sought to determine the reported a posttest score of 74.36 (SD = 14.08), impact of state standardized tests through the use students in the same categories for posttest 2 of standardized assessment scores for reading, scored 53.66 (SD = 14.45) and 61.57 (SD = math, and science on student content knowledge 15.94) respectively (See Table 5). This achievement when using a Vee map. The difference in posttest scores was found to be analysis of the data for this objective was guided statistically significant in both cases. Posttest 1 by the null hypothesis that there is no significant reported, F(246.60) = 12.314, p = .00, r2 = .27, difference in student content knowledge posttest 2 reported, F(129.81) = 9.637, p = .00, achievement based on a state standardized test. r2 = .25, respectively (See Table 5). Statistically Following the first replication and submission of significant differences were found in the posttest 1, students considered remedial readers replications, thus the null hypothesis was reported a posttest score of 65.08 (SD = 17.25), rejected. students not considered remedial readers Journal of Agricultural Education 91 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011 Thoron & Myers Impact of Gender… The state science score comparison of The state math score comparison of posttest posttest 1 students remedial in science reported a 1 students remedial in math reported a posttest posttest score of 67.54 (SD = 16.74), students score of 68.00 (SD = 18.78), students not not remedial in science reported a posttest score remedial in math reported a posttest score of of 75.03 (SD = 13.78). This difference in 71.71 (SD = 13.09). This difference in posttest posttest scores were found to be statistically was not found to be statically significant, significant, F(171.01) = 3.72, p = .01, r2 = .24. F(234.29) = 3.39, p = .01, r2 = .11. The second The second replication and submission of replication and students’ completion of posttest posttest 2, students remedial in science reported 2, students remedial in math reported a posttest a posttest score of 54.76 (SD = 14.93), students score of 53.34 (SD = 14.32), student not not remedial in science reported a posttest score remedial in math reported a posttest score of of 63.89 (SD = 13.64). This difference in 61.11 (SD = 15.15). The difference in posttest posttest scores were found to be statistically was found to be statically significant F(111.24) significant, F(126.74) = 8.20, p ≤ .00, r2 = .30. = 6.62, p ≤ .00, r2 = .25. Statistically significant Statistically significant differences were found differences were found in one replication, thus in the replications, thus the null hypothesis was the null hypothesis was rejected (See Table 5). rejected (See Table 5). Table 5 Posttest scores of Vee map by SES (n = 268). State Mean Test Score – Remedial Mean Test Score – Non Remedial Standardized Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Test M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n Reading 65.08 17.25 101 53.66 14.45 101 71.36 14.08 167 61.57 15.94 167 Science 67.54 16.74 173 54.76 14.93 173 75.03 13.78 95 63.89 13.64 95 Math 68.00 18.78 89 53.34 14.32 89 71.71 13.09 179 61.11 15.15 179 Conclusions and Recommendations material must be inherently meaningful. Therefore, further investigation seeking The Thoron and Myers (2010) study knowledge if agriscience education and indicated that the Vee map, as a formative laboratories are more meaningful to students that assessment tool, was more effective in the qualify for reduced lunch status. Also, are agriscience classroom when compared to the students at lower socioeconomic status levels laboratory report. The Vee map is an interactive (eligible for reduced lunch program) bringing in teaching/evaluation tool to be considered for more practical knowledge and are thus able to classroom use. This study’s results indicated the apply it with a Vee map? Further investigation Vee map is not affected by gender, ethnicity, or may provide a link for student motivation in the grade level. However, this study does report a classroom for students in this demographic. statistically significant difference in SES status. Significant differences were found in Further examination of the SES status revealed reading and science when comparing remedial students receiving reduced lunch scored better and non–remedial learners. It can be concluded during both replications. Students receiving free that the Vee map does not provide either lunch scored the lowest each replication. The remedial or non–remedial learners with a researchers suggest further examination of significant advantage. Therefore, the Vee map qualities that reduced lunch students’ possess may not aid in closing the gap that exists that influence the findings. Further investigation between the two groups. More importantly and consideration of the theoretical model however, is the Vee map does not provide a guiding this study suggest emphasis on learners' disadvantage to students struggling to read. A prior knowledge and the influence created tool that assesses scientific measures and not during meaningful learning (Ausubel, 1963). As reading ability is increasingly important. Novak (1980) stated, in order for learners to be Furthermore, the examination of math scores successful through the Ausubel theory the Journal of Agricultural Education 92 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011 Thoron & Myers Impact of Gender… reported mixed results and further investigation this tool and consider it an effective way to should be conducted. assess experiments in the agriscience classroom. Finally, this study does not provide evidence Baxter, Shavelson, Goldman, and Pine (1992) that the formative assessment tool provides an stated there is a dissatisfaction of current advantage over one group or another when based assessments, leading to a further developed need on grade, gender, or ethnicity. The United States to reform curriculum and advance student Department of Education called for assessments thinking and understanding. This tool provides that are research based and provide for measures for better thinking when measuring student that do not place an advantage on specific content knowledge achievement (Thoron & demographic groups (Anderson, 2002). Further Myers, 2010) and this study indicated it is investigation of student attitudes toward the use unbiased based on gender, grade, and ethnicity. of Vee maps should be investigated. Further Shavelson, Baxter, and Pine (1991) stated that investigation is warranted to find if the Vee map the educational research should focus on provides a way to motivate females and educational measures that go beyond correct minorities to become enthused about science. responses to reports and focus on conceptual Although this study has limitations based on understanding, problem-solving, and a purposive selected sample, Vee maps should application, the Vee map provides the profession be considered a meaningful tool in the with that avenue. agriscience profession. Inservice and preservice teachers and teacher educators should examine References Atkin, J. M., & Coffey, J. E. (Eds.). (2003). Everyday assessment in the science classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1–2. doi: 10.1023/A:1015171124982 Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York, NY: Grune and Stratton. Baker, A. J., Thoron, A. C., Myers, B. E., & Cody, T. J. (2008). The influence of laboratory experience timing on student knowledge–level achievement in an undergraduate introductory agricultural mechanics course. NACTA Journal, 52(1), 6-9. Baxter G. P., Shavelson, R. J., Goldman, S. R., & Pine, J. (1992). Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-on science assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 1-17. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Diederen, J., Gruppen, H., Hartog, R., & Voragen, A., G. (2006). Design and evaluation of digital assignments on research experiments within food chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3), 227-246. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9010-x Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.) Constructivism in education (pp. 385-400). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Edwards, M., Luft, J., Potter, T., & Roehrig, G. (1999). Students learn more when they design and conduct their own research. The Science Teacher, 66(6), 44-47. Journal of Agricultural Education 93 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011 Thoron & Myers Impact of Gender… Esche, S. K. (2006). On the integration of remote experimentation into undergraduate laboratories-technical implementation. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1), 43-53. Gowin, D. B. (1979). The structure of knowledge. Educational Theory, 20(4), 319-328. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lebowitz, S. J. (1998, April). Use of Vee maps in a college science laboratory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA. Millar, R. (2004, June). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper presented for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Retrieved from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June3- 4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html. Myers, B. E., Thoron A. C., & Thompson, G. W. (2009). Perceptions of the National Agriscience Teacher Ambassador Academy toward integrating science into school–based agricultural education curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(4), 120-133. doi: 10.5032/jae.2009.04120 National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Novak, J. D. (1980). Learning theory applied to the biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 42(5), 280-285. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625-645. Ornstein, A. (2006). The frequency of hands-on experimentation and student attitudes toward science: A statistically significant relation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3), 285-297. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9015-5 Osborne, E. W. (1994). Biological science applications in agriculture. Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers. Roehrig, G., Luft, A. J., Edwards, M. (2001). An alternative to the traditional laboratory report. The Science Teacher, 68(1), 28-31. Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1991). Performance assessment in science. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 347-362. Stone, C. A., & Lane, S. (2003). Consequences of a state accountability program: Examining relationships between school performance gains and teacher, student, and school variables. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 1-26. Journal of Agricultural Education 94 Volume 52, Number 1, 2011