Classification can be used to predict unknown functions of proteins by using known function information. In some cases, multiple sets of data are available for classification where prediction is only part of the problem, and knowing the most reliable source for prediction is also relevant. Our goal is to develop classification techniques to find the most predictive of the multiple data sets that we have in this project. We use existing classification techniques like linear and quadratic classifications and statistical relevance measures like posterior and log p analysis in our proposed algorithm, which is able to find the data set that is expected to give the best prediction. The proposed algorithm is used on experimental readings during cell cycle of yeast and it predicts the genes that participate in cell-cycle regulation and the type of experiment that provides evidence of cell cycle involvement for any particular gene.

No description available.

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Education. Johannesburg, 2016 / Argumentation is viewed as an important pedagogical tool that is central to the teaching and learning of science. Research has shown argumentation as one of the pedagogical practices that promote meaningful learner talk and engagement. In South Africa, most such research has been carried out in high schools and universities on tutored ability in argumentation. There is no research on untutored learner ability in argumentation in primary school science. This study sought to address this gap by determining untutored learner argumentation in science in a Gauteng primary school. I wanted to establish whether and how untutored learners argue and the nature of their arguments. I also wanted to examine the evidence that they give to support assertions. I observed learner interactions in my two Grade 7 science classes through small group discussions and whole class discussions. All the participants were from a public primary school in Gauteng. These learners were untutored (had not been taught) in argumentation, but as their teacher, I had been exposed to argumentation through participation in a masters course. I used qualitative research methodology and drew from Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) to determine the construction of arguments during the science lessons. I used an analytic frame work by Erduran, Simon and Osborne (2004) which helps to categorize the various components of an argument into different levels. My findings indicated that learners who are untutored in argumentation are able to formulate arguments. Literature has reported that untutored learners in high schools in South Africa present only level 2 arguments. In this study, Grade 7 learners who are untutored in argumentation were able to formulate level 3 arguments in some instances. The study further revealed that some of the learners were able to support their arguments using scientific evidence although most tended to be simple constructs consisting of only data and claims. The fact that they were taught by a teacher, who is tutored in argumentation, may have literature bearing on the learners’ argument ability. Current work in South Africa has shown how untutored teachers do not argue: how untutored learners do not argue: how tutored teachers learn to argue and how tutored learners can learn to argue. What we do not know is how untutored learners argue if they have a tutored teacher. Further research might inform teacher education and classroom argumentation in constrained environments where learners are generally untutored as is the case in many South African classrooms.

A research report submitted to the faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science by combination of coursework and research report. Johannesburg, 2016. / The merits of argumentation for science teaching and learning have been established not just for South Africa, but globally. However, little is known about what both students and teachers understand by argumentation for science learning and teaching. This study aimed to investigate what seventy nine students and two teachers understood about argumentation and to examine the nature of students written scientific arguments. A sample of 79 students from two high schools in the north of Johannesburg, South Africa, was selected to complete a questionnaire that included a single Multiple Choice Question task. Students’ respective teachers were interviewed for their understanding on argumentation. The interviews were inductively analysed to extract themes related on teachers’ perspectives on argumentation. The MCQ task item was analysed using Toulmins Argumentation Pattern as adapted by Erduran et al, to show levels of argumentation. The rest of the questions on the questionnaire were analysed according to my research questions to get students’ understanding on argumentation. Three main findings were found from the study. Firstly, students understand what a good scientific argument constitutes of. They mentioned debates and discussions as an opportunity to engage in an argument. Secondly, teachers demonstrated an understanding that argumentation requires facts and evidence to support claims. Meanwhile, findings also show that teachers value science arguments as they demand students to use evidence, rather than opinions to support their claims. Thirdly, most students struggled to construct levels at a higher level. This meant that most students wrote arguments that consisted of a claim, data/ evidence or a weak warrant. Hence, arguments were at levels 1, 2 and seldom at level 3. Students written scientific arguments revealed that only 24 out of 79 students were able select the correct scientific answer. The remaining fifty students selected the wrong answer and their arguments were based on the incorrect scientific justification that, when a solid substance is in a gaseous phase in a closed system it would have lesser mass, simply because gas weighs less than a solid. This was a common misconception that most students had. These outcomes imply that there is a need to train teachers how to help students write valid scientific arguments, the inclusion of more debates and consideration to ideas as to how students can construct written argument. Lastly, those argumentation practices should assist teachers on how to minimise students’ misconception on the law of the conservation of mass. As such, argumentation can serve as an instruction for learner-centred approach to teaching and learning of science. Keywords: argumentation, written argument, nature of an argument / LG2017

Typescript. / Bibliography: leaves [297]-304. / vi, 304 l illus., tables

No description available.

No description available.

A signed LAC Non-Exclusive License form from this author is pending. / In this thesis I attempt to develop an alternative to the logical positivist's image of science, which attempts to exclude beliefs from scientific investigations. First I set the problem up by describing what the positivists mean by belief and how they attempt to exclude belief through the use of the scientific method. I begin to develop an alternative by examining the views of three philosophers of science: Thomas S. Kuhn, Michael Polanyi, and Gerard Radnitzky. Each of them provides an alternative to the positivistic conception of science by suggesting that scientific research is surrounded by a framework of tacit beliefs. I present each view in the following way. First I describe the background and context for the framework hypothesis; then I explain the framework itself, including discussions on the nature of the framework, how it is acquired, its role in visible scientific activity, and how switches from one framework to another occur; finally I assess each person's insights, including each's relevance for my thesis. The examination of these views sets the stage for my last chapter. Here I briefly compare the three thinkers, noting similarities and differences. Then I highlight each thinker's unique insights. Finally, I present a brief description of what I believe is a viable alternative to the positivistic image of science, based on the work of the three philosophers.

Social-ecological systems research is interventionist by nature. As a subset of sustainability science, social-ecological systems research aims to generate knowledge and introduce concepts that will bring about transformation. Yet scientific concepts diverge in innumerable ways when they are put to work in the world. Why are concepts used in quite different ways to the intended purpose? Why do some appear to fail and others succeed? What do the answers to these questions tell us about the nature of science-society engagement, and what implications do they have for social-ecological systems research and sustainability science? This thesis addresses these questions from an interpretive perspective, focusing on the meanings that shape human actions. In particular, the thesis examines how meaning, interpretation and experience shape the enactment of four action-oriented sustainability concepts: adaptive management, biosphere reserves, biodiversity corridors and planetary boundaries/reconnecting to the biosphere. In so doing, the thesis provides in-depth empirical applications of three interpretive traditions – hermeneutic, discursive and dialogical – that together articulate a broadly interpretive approach to studying social-ecological complexity. In the hermeneutic tradition, Paper I presents a ‘rich narrative’ case study of a single practitioner tasked with enacting adaptive management in an Australian land management agency, and Paper II provides a qualitative multi-case study of learning among 177 participants in 11 UNESCO biosphere reserves. In the discursive tradition, Paper III uses Q-method to explore interpretations of ‘successful’ biodiversity corridors among 20 practitioners, scientists and community representatives in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. In the dialogical tradition, Paper IV reworks conventional understandings of knowledge-action relationships by using three concepts from contemporary practice theory – ‘actionable understanding,’ ‘ongoing business’ and the ‘eternally unfolding present’ – to explore the enactment of adaptive management in an Australian national park. Paper V explores ideas of human-environment connection in the concepts planetary boundaries and reconnecting to the biosphere, and develops an ‘embodied connection’ where human-environment relations emerge through interactivity between mind, body and environment over time. Overall, the thesis extends the frontiers of social-ecological systems research by highlighting the meanings that shape social-ecological complexity; by contributing theories and methods that treat social-ecological change as a relational and holistic process; and by providing entry points to address knowledge, politics and power. The thesis contributes to sustainability science more broadly by introducing novel understandings of knowledge-action relationships; by providing advice on how to make sustainability interventions more useful and effective; by introducing tools that can improve co-production and outcome assessment in the global research platform Future Earth; and by helping to generate robust forms of justification for transdisciplinary knowledge production. The interventionist, actionable nature of social-ecological systems research means that interpretive approaches are an essential complement to existing structural, institutional and behavioural perspectives. Interpretive research can help build a scientifically robust, normatively committed and critically reflexive sustainability science. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 2: Manuscript. Paper 4: Manuscript.</p>

There is an increased emphasis on inquiry in national and Oregon state high school science standards. As hypothesis testing is a key component of these new standards, instructors need effective strategies to improve students' hypothesis testing skills. Recent research suggests that classroom exercises may prove useful. A general purpose classroom activity called the thought experiment is proposed. The effectiveness of 7 hours of instruction using this exercise was measured in an introductory biology course, using a quasi-experimental contrast group design. An instrument for measuring hypothesis testing skill is also proposed. Treatment (n=18) and control (n=10) sections drawn from preexisting high school classes were pre- and post-assessed using the proposed Multiple Choice Assessment of Deductive Reasoning. Both groups were also post-assessed by individually completing a written, short-answer format hypothesis testing exercise. Treatment section mean posttest scores on contextualized, multiple choice problem sets were significantly higher than those of the control section. Mean posttest scores did not significantly differ between sections on abstract deductive logic problems or the short answer format hypothesis testing exercise.