Kristen Quintana SMT 3100 Part I This clinical interview will examine the participants understanding of the differences

between climate and weather. The Florida Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (SSS) identify this topic under the big idea Earth Systems and Patterns where the interactions between different spheres create changes in our planet. The specific benchmark that requires students to differentiate between weather and climate is SC.7.E.7.6. The cognitive complexity of this benchmark is a Level 2, meaning it is a simple application of the concept presented. Despite this, the concept is not fully understood even by some adults, which leads to curiosity towards the mental processes that occur when attempting to explain and/or justify explanations that result when asked about the concept. The only real difference between weather and climate is a time factor. Weather is used to describe the conditions of the atmosphere on a given day or at a given moment where the factor of time is small. Climate however requires a larger time period, often 30 years. The relationship between climate and weather is evident and understood, but it is the specifics that seem to confuse students who breezed through the topic several years ago. The climate changes the weather in the sense that the climate gets hotter or colder and therefore changes the everyday weather people experience (even if it is in the slightest of ways). Because the climate is the average, it explains the reason for different weather patterns but not specifically the weather patterns on any given day. The participant of this clinical interview is an 18-year-old American female that attends the University of Florida. She is majoring in Costume Design and claims her strengths to be in biology, math, and art. During the interview, it is planned to ask

questions that pertain to weather and climate as individual concepts and then ones that demand a comparison. Specifically, the participant will be asked what they thought of the climate and weather that day and if they felt there was a difference in the two. Their response will lead into a discussion about what they feel is the definition of the two words and hopefully how they relate to one another. From that point images will be used to see if they stick to their initial beliefs or if they can be lead askew or towards the correct ideas. Based on their feedback there will be a series of questions similar to the ones at the start to determine if the participants ideas had changed in any way. Through this process a clear identification of the way the participant was thinking will be achieved. Misconceptions will be uncovered and the strength of previous knowledge will be assessed. When put together, all of these components will lead to the ultimate goal and a successful clinical interview would have been performed.

Starter Question Good/ Bad How was the weather on your walk over to meet me? Sunny/ Rainy Hot/ Cold Sunny/ Rainy How was the climate? Is there a difference between the two? Hot/ Cold ????? Expected Answer

Part II

The goal of this clinical interview was to examine the participants understanding of the differences between weather and climate. Although the first trial was not as effective as desired, improvements were made to the questioning process that allowed a successful interview to be performed. Initial Impressions: In conducting this interview, I learned a lot of things about the participant and aspects that I did not initially think were going to give me problems. The initial knowledge the participant had about this topic did not seem to be efficient during the first trial but I feel that was my own fault. The method in which I was questioning the participant was not effective but during the interview I was unaware. In hindsight I found that the questions did not demand for the student to respond with answers that would apply in the way I wanted them too. They were too open-ended and didnt offer enough guidance towards the solutions I wanted so most of the time spent during the interview was spent on redirection. There was a high level of frustration during the first trial because of this on both my part and the participants because of these factors, which hindered the effectiveness of the interview even further.

Modifications: In order to fix this problem, I had to come up with a new set of questions that would better guide the participant in the direction I wanted so that the time we spent doing the interview would be more successful. My new goal was to satisfy the thought processes of the participant that I had uncovered in the first trial with the hopes that the questions would both be easier to understand as well as get answers out of the participant that would aide me in uncovering more thought processes and therefore have a more successful interview. I knew that I had to come up with a way to lead the participant without giving away all the answers. Because the cognitive complexity of the benchmark was a level two I decided that a card sort as a means of matching would be appropriate. I started with questions that would lead into the topic as I explained in Part I about the weather that day and how it related to the climate. I used a more worldly view in order to try to differentiate different climates in different parts of the world and how each impacts the weather. Once the participant answered the questions on their own the card sort was introduced. Two pictures were given along with 10 matching cards. The student was to match the cards with the appropriate pictures. Not all of the cards had to be used, in fact they all could not have been used because most did not apply. The sorting was discussed and then cards were taken to see if the participants responses would change in comparison to each part of both trials.

Analysis of Individuals Knowledge: This interview challenged the participant despite their placement at the University of Florida. Frustration hindered the ability to be clear and concise because the questions were not formatted in a way that it was easily understood exactly what was being looked for. The variety of answers that could have been given because of the openendedness of the questions lowered the confidence of the participant and therefore made the process more difficult. Once revised, it was clear that the student understood the concepts being asked about. They were able to define terms effectively and describe them using real world situations. The trouble came when the participant was asked to relate the two terms together. At different stages of the interview, the participan ts answers in regards to this changed in the slightest ways but made big impacts on the demonstration of understanding. It was clear that the participant had ideas of the relationships that changed slightly when the card sort was given but when the cards were taken and an explanation was demanded for the last time the participant struggled and gave an answer that combined the two. This demonstrates how the participant was not confident in their answers when asked to describe a relationship between the two concepts leading to changes that were made and undone with certain circumstances. Despite these observations there were never changes to the primary definitions and ideas presented about the concepts individually.

Because of this it is appropriate to say that the participant has an understanding at the complexity level assigned to the benchmark but not beyond. When confidence was raised and tools were provided the correct explanations were arrived upon demonstrating that the understanding was there and that the connections just could not be made without this help. This idea was strengthened by the fact that the participant mixed answers given with confidence and initial answers after the cards were taken. Concluding Thoughts: Overall I feel that the interview was successful in the end and I was able to differentiate between what the participant knew and was struggling with. A clear picture was given in terms of the knowledge that could be demonstrated just by questioning versus the knowledge that required the use of tools to bring out of the participant as well as the strength of both. I felt that the findings were sufficient although they demonstrated that the knowledge the participant should have they did not to the full extent.