View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 1.

Coding scheme for comparing student propositions to expert propositions.

 
Code Description
Compatible elaborate (CE) Statement concurs with the expert’s proposition and has sufficient detail to show the thinking behind the concepts articulated.
Compatible sketchy (CS) Statement concurs with expert proposition, but essential details are missing; bits and pieces of facts are articulated but are not synthesized into a coherent whole.
Compatible incompatible (CI) Sketchy statements are made that concur with the proposition but are not elaborated on; at other times, statements contradict proposition.
Incompatible sketchy (IS) Statements disagree with the proposition but provide few details and are not reoccurring; responses appear to be simply guesses.
Incompatible elaborate (IE) Statements disagree with proposition and informants provide details or coherent, personal logic supporting them; same or similar statements/explanations recur throughout the conversation.
Nonexistent (N) Informant responds “I don’t know” or does not mention the topic when asked a question calling for its use.
No evidence (ø) A topic was not directly addressed by a question and the informant did not mention it within the context of a response to any question.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 2.

Informant coding for Benchmark 1 and Benchmark 1 sub-concepts.

 
Informant
Describe the origin of food Victor Parker Other 16
Geography
Biology (genetic or ecological) +† +
Cultural group origin +
Codings‡ CS(1) CS(2) N(0)
A plus indicates that the sub-concept was addressed. Informants with the same codings are combined.
The number in parentheses equals the total number of sub-concepts addressed by the informant.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 3.

Informant coding for Benchmark 2 and Benchmark 2 sub-concepts.

 
Discuss reasons why farmers select plant and animal crops for production Informant
Parker and Art Virginia Lilly Other 14
Economics +†
Plant characteristics +
Animal breeds +
Environmental
Codings‡ CS(1) CS(1) IS(1) N(0)
A plus indicates that the sub-concept was addressed. Informants with the same codings are combined.
The number in parentheses equals the total number of sub-concepts addressed by the informant.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 4.

Growth requirement list by number and percentage of informants discussing.

 
Crop growth requirement Percentage of informants discussing requirement
Water 72
Soil 67
Light 56
Temperature 50
Air 22
Protection 17
Nutrients 6



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 5.

Informant coding for Benchmark 3 and Benchmark 3 sub-concepts.

 
Describe what people living under adverse conditions do to obtain food Informant
Lilly 7 Others 10 Others
Obtain elsewhere
Adjust growing conditions +†
Adjust cultural practices + +
Codings‡ IS(2) IS(1) N(0)
A plus indicates that the sub-concept was addressed. Informants with the same codings are combined.
The number in parentheses equals the total number of sub-concepts addressed by the informant.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 6.

Informant coding for Benchmark 4 and Benchmark 4 sub-concepts.

 
Informant
Describe spoilage prevention methods† Sandi, Trisha, Suzanne, Parker, and Lilly Art and LeMarr Virginia, Victor, Montie, and Paul Delaine and Nancy Alicia, Lynn, and Logan Denise and Greg
Cooling +‡ + + +
Air removal (packaging) + + +
Heating (cooking) + +
Sanitation practices +
Codings§ CS(3) CS(3) CI(2) IS(1) IS(1) IS(0)
Of the 10 sub-concepts, ony those addressed by informants are presented.
A plus indicates that the sub-concept was addressed. Informants with the same codings are combined.
§The number in parentheses equals the total number of sub-concepts addressed by the informant.