Middle-school students' reasoning about alternative hypotheses in a scaffolded, software-based inquiry investigation

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 277-311

  Kyza, Eleni A ^a  

^a CYPRUS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449392458     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07370000903221718     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952-978.
3. Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 69-80.
4. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and evolution of living beings in secondary schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching (27), 415-427.
5. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
6. Boag, P. T., & Grant, P. R. (1984). Darwin's Finches (Geospiza) on Isla Daphne Major, Galapagos: Breeding and feeding ecology in a climatically variable environment. Ecological Monographs, 54(4), 463-489.
7. Bullock, M., & Ziegler, A. (1999). Scientific reasoning: Developmental and individual differences. In F. E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Individual development from three to twelve: Findings from the Munich Longitudinal Study (pp. 38-54). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 514-529.
9. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235.
10. Carney, K., Golan, R., Holum, A., Laczina, E., Mundt-Leimberer, J., Reiser, B. J., et al. (2002). The Struggle for Survival: An ecosystems and natural selection project. Evanston, IL: NSF Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS).
11. Chamberlain, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science (old series), 15(92).
12. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
13. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25-42.
14. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
15. Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 397-434.
16. Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery processes. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Fugelsang, J. A., Stein, C. B., Green, A. E., & Dunbar, K. N. (2004). Theory and data interactions of the scientific mind: Evidence from the molecular and the cognitive laboratory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 86-95.
18. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Grant, P. R., Grant, B. R., Smith, J. N. M., Abbott, I. J., & Abbott, L. K. (1976). Darwin's finches: Population variation and natural selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 73(1), 257-261.
20. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43-55.
21. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
22. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in ScienceTteaching, 39(6), 522-549.
23. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented in struction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
24. Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring Science: The cognition and development of discovery process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
25. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual Space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48.
26. Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111-146.
27. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211-228.
28. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Bass, K. M., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350.
30. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689.
31. Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1-8.
32. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
33. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In R. L. W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (6th ed., pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
35. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529
36. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Analysing verbal data: Principles, methods and problems. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1175-1189). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
37. Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727-758.
38. Metz, K. E. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290.
39. Moshman, D., & Thompson, P. A. (1981). Hypothesis testing in students: Sequences, stages, and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(4), 341-352.
40. Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Tweney, R. D. (1977). Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 315-325). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
42. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Birkenhead, Auckland: Heinemann Education.
43. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.
44. Platt, J. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 196, 347-353.
45. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.
46. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.
47. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
48. Radinsky, J. (2000). Making sense of complex data: A conceptual framework for studying students' development of reflective inquiry dispositions. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
49. Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1085-1099.
50. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
51. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. C. D. Klahr (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Conant, F. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61-94.
53. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Physics students' epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(S1), S144-159.
54. Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2000). Interpreting experimental data: The views of upper secondary school and university science students. International Journal of Science Education, 22(10), 1069-1084.
55. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
56. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
57. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
58. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166.
59. Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349-422.
60. Smith, J. N. M., Grant, P. R., Grant, B. R., Abbott, I. J., & Abbott, L. K. (1978). Seasonal variation in feeding habits of Darwin's Ground Finches. Ecology, 59(6), 1137-1150.
61. Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children's differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753-766.
62. Strahler, A. N. (1992). Understanding science: An introduction to concepts and issues. Prometheus Books.
63. Tabak, I. (1999). Unraveling the development of scientific literacy: Domain-specific inquiry support in a system of cognitive and social interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
64. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-355.
65. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393-429.
66. Tabak, I., Reiser, B. J., Sandoval, W. A., Leone, T. J., & Steinmuller, F. (2001). BGuILE: The Galapagos Finches-The struggle for survival [Computer software]. In J. R. Jungck (Ed.), The BioQuest library VI. San Diego, CA: Academic.
67. Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51, 1-10.
68. Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 36(2), 179-199.
69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70. Wason, P. C. (1977). 'On the failure to eliminate hypotheses. . .'⊢ A second look. In P. N. Johnson-Laird and P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 307-314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71. Wilkening, F., & Sodian, B. (2005). Scientific reasoning in young children: Introduction. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64(3),137-139.
72. Windschitl, M. (2000). Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 81-95.
73. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). Role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89-100.
74. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
75. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-463.
76. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review,27,172-223.