1. A Taxonomic Scheme for Propositional Analysis 4 th Int’l Conference on Concept Mapping October 6, 2010 Jerson Geraldo Romano Jr Universidade de São Paulo, Programa de Pós-Graduação Interunidades em Ensino de Ciências Paulo R. M. Correia* Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Artes Ciências e Humanidades *prmc@usp.br

2.  4 th CMC Program Committee  Brazilian Funding Agencies  Universidade de São Paulo  Co-author

3. Main topics  Motivation  Research procedures  Results and discussion  Conclusions

4. Literature review Dynamic thinking & CMs

5. Literature review

7. Dynamic thinking & MCs

8. Literature review Causative & non-causative propositions

9. Our taxonomic scheme

10. Research objective  Develop a taxonomic scheme for propositional analysis  Compare Cmaps made by different students Science-Technology-Society approach Our hypothesis  More dynamic propositions, more understanding about STS

11. Data collection  Setting 1 st year students at Universidade de São Paulo ACH0011 Natural Science course (15 weeks-2h/week) Total set of Cmaps: n=55 Total set of propositions: n=825

12. Data collection  Experimental conditions Half-structured concept map (HSCmap) How-type focal question How does bioethics regulate the relationship between science and society? Quantified concepts were required More technology (root concept) & more controversy

13. How to use our taxonomic scheme?

14. Data analysis  Descriptive statistics: univariate approach Evaluation of the proposed variables (S/D11/D12/D21/D22/D23)  Exploratory analysis: multivariate approach Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) Pattern identification through Cmaps natural clustering

15. Results and discussion  Descriptive statistics: univariate approach Box-plots

16. Results and discussion  Dynamic thinking stimuli A: props w/ “more technology” were not considered Knock out the quantified root concept effect (mainly on ↓D22/↓D23) B: How-type focal question effect Props w/ “more technology” & “more controversy” were not considered (↑S/↑D11/↑D21 & ↓D12/↓D22/↓D23)

17. HCA: X(55,6) City-block (Cmaps distance) & Ward’s (clusters distance)

18. Clusters’ description

19. Illustrative Cmaps (Cluster IV: ↑S)

20. Illustrative Cmaps (Cluster I: ↑D11/↑D12)

21. Illustrative Cmaps (Cluster II: ↑D22/↑D23)

22. Conclusions  Propositions are critical to understand Cmaps  There is latent information to be unveil  Our taxonomic scheme Deep evaluation of props (S/D11/D12/D21/D22/D23) More objetive (4-question procedure for classification)  Students under the same experimental conditions Cmaps w/ different kinds of props Descriptive props (Cluster IV, ↑S) Non-causative props (Cluster I, ↑D11/↑D12) Causative props (Cluster II, ↑D22/↑D23)  Soon… This work will be submitted to J. Res. Sci. Teach.

23. CMC 2014 in Brazil 2012 ? Timeline Increase the interaction between our community and Brazilian researchers/practitioners Celebrate the 80th Anniversary of USP Celebrate the 10th Anniversary of CMC

24. CMC 2014 in Brazil  BID Committee Paulo R. M. CORREIA (USP) José J. BOUERI FILHO (USP) Ítalo M. DUTRA (UFRGS) Maria Elena INFANTE-MALACHIAS (USP) Rita MARRIOTT (University of Birmingham) Oswaldo MASSAMBANI (USP Agency of Innovation) Marco Antônio MOREIRA (UFRGS) Patrícia Lupion TORRES (PUC-PR)

25. Thanks for your attention Gracias por su atención Dank voor uw aandacht Kiitos huomiota Merci pour votre attention Grazie per la vostra attenzione Takk for oppmerksomheten Tack för er uppmärksamhet Děkujeme za vaši pozornost Ευχαριστώ για την προσοχή σας आपका ध्यान के लिए धन्यवाद お客様の注目を集めるために感謝 귀하의 관심을 가져 주셔서 감사합니다 Спасибо за Ваше внимание Obrigado pela sua atenção Contact prmc@usp.br