Sentence examples for students incorporated from inspiring English sources

We examined transcripts of the interviews for (1) patterns of how students incorporated non-adaptive causal factors, such as genetic drift, into their explanations and (2) whether they conceptualized non-adaptive factors to be an alternative to, or synergistic with, selection.

Many students incorporated universal design features into apartment designs to ensure that people of all ages could comfortably navigate entrances, bathrooms and kitchens.

However, students incorporated mutation in short answers at a basic level (1 or 2 points) significantly more often than they did in models.

The CINS allowed us to detect students' baseline knowledge of individual concepts and principles, while analysis of the Dino Problem revealed what principles (concepts and connections) students incorporated in their reasoning about the process of evolution.

We analyzed the models that included mutation to evaluate how accurately students incorporated the concept into their models.

We analyzed models constructed by students on their midterm and final exams to investigate 1) whether students' GtE models represented variation and its molecular origin, 2) how accurately students incorporated the concept of mutation into their models, and 3) whether students consistently articulated the mechanism of mutation across different types of assessment (models and short answers).

Virtually every student incorporated classrooms, open space and fresh air, and spaces for family visits and therapy.

Interview data revealed that all of the students who incorporated non-adaptive factors into their explanations of evolutionary change (eight out of 55) presented non-adaptive factors in the form of "genetic drift," "bottleneck," or "founder's effect" (See Table 4).

The proportion of students who incorporated mutation into their models of the origin of variation increased significantly (to 65%) on the final exam.

Group 2 and 3 students only incorporated mutation into one of the two tests (the final or the midterm, respectively), and both groups did so with a lower propositional accuracy than their group 1 peers.

For students who incorporated mutation into both models (group 1), the accuracy of propositions containing the mutation concept did not significantly change between the midterm and the final exam (Table 5).