The 21st century challenge for science education: Assessing scientific reasoning

Thinking Skills and Creativity

Volumn 10, Issue , 2013, Pages 265-279

  Osborne, Jonathan ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Higher order thinking; School science; Scientific reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886302785     PISSN: 18711871     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.006     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. Abrahams I., Millar R. Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education 2008, 30(14):1945-1969.
2. Abrahams I., Reiss M.J. Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2012, 49(8):1035-1055. 10.1002/tea.21036.
3. Ainsworth S., Prain V., Tytler R. Drawing to learn in science. Science 2011, 333:1096-1097.
4. Ames G.J., Murray F.B. When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology 1982, 18:894-897.
5. Au W. High stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher 2007, 36(5):258-267.
6. Avargil S., Herscovitz O., Dori Y.J. Teaching thinking skills in context-based learning: Teachers' challenges and assessment knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2012, 21(2):207-225. 10.1007/s10956-011-9302-7.
7. Bachelard G. La formation de l'esprit scientifique 1938, Librairie philosophique Vrin, Paris.
8. Bao L., Cai T., Koenig K., Fang K., Han J., Wang J., et al. Learning and Scientific Reasoning. Science 2009, 323(5914):586-587.
9. Bazerman C. Shaping written knowledge 1988, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
10. Black P. Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science Education 1992, 21:49-97.
11. Bøe M.V., Henriksen E.K., Lyons T., Schreiner C. Participation in science and technology: Young people and achievement-related choices in late-modern societies. Studies in Science Education 2011, 47(1):37-72.
12. Chi M. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science 2009, 1:73-105.
13. Chinn C.A., Brewer W.F. An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1998, 35(6):623-654.
14. Claxton G. Educating the inquiring mind: the challenge for school science 1991, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
15. Cohen I.B. The education of the public in science. Impact of Science on Society 1952, 3:67-101.
16. Collins H., Pinch T. The Golem 1993, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. Committee to Enquire into the Position of Natural Science in the Educational System of Great Britain. (1918). Report of the committee appointed by the Prime Minister to enquire into the position of natural science in the educational system of Great Britain. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
18. Cossons N. Let us take science into our culture. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 1993, 18(4):337-342.
19. Dainton F.S. The Dainton report: an inquiry into the flow of candidates into science and technology 1968, HMSO, London.
20. Dori Y.J., Kaberman Z. Assessing high school chemistry students' modeling sub-skills in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Instructional Science 2012, 40(1):69-91. 10.1007/s11251-011-9172-7.
21. Dori Y.J., Sasson I. Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2008, 45(2):219-250. 10.1002/tea.20197.
22. Driver R., Leach J., Millar R., Scott P. Young people's images of science 1996, Open University Press, Buckingham.
23. Driver R., Newton P., Osborne J.F. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 2000, 84(3):287-312.
24. Duschl R. Restructuring science education 1990, Teachers College Press, New York.
25. Dweck C. Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development (Essays in social psychology) 2000, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA.
26. Ford M. Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education 2008, 92(3):404-423.
27. Ford M.J. A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction 2012, 30(3):207-245. 10.1080/07370008.2012.689383.
28. Garrat J., Overton T., Threlfall T. A question of chemistry: creative problems for critical thinkers 1999, Pearson, Harlow.
29. Giere R., Bickle J., Maudlin R.F. Understanding scientific reasoning 2006, Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. 5th ed.
30. Gilbert J. Catching the knowledge wave? The knowledge society and the future of education 2005, NZCER Press, Wellington, New Zealand.
31. Developing models in science education 2000, Kluwer, Dordrecht. J. Gilbert, C. Boulter (Eds.).
32. Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Roberts, R. (2008). Concepts of evidence. School of Education, University of Durham.
33. Gott, R., & Murphy, P. (1987). Assessing investigation at Ages 13 and 15. Assessment of performance unit science report for teachers: 9. London: Department of Education and Science.
34. Handy C. The empty raincoat 1994, Hutchinson, London, UK.
35. Hannaway J., Hamilton L. Accountability policies: implications for school and classroom practices 2008, Urban Institute, Research of Record, Washington, DC.
36. Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2010). U.S. math performance in global perspective: How well does each state do at producing high-achieving students? Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.
37. Hanushek E.A., Woessmann L. How much do educational outcomes matter in OECD countries?. Economic Policy 2011, 26(67):428-491.
38. Hanushek E.A., Woessmann L. Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. Journal of Economic Growth 2012, 17(4):267-321.
39. Harré R. The philosophies of science: an introductory survey 1984, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2nd ed.
40. Harrison A.G., Treagust D.F. A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education 2002, 22(9):1011-1026.
41. Hempel C.G. Deductive-nomological vs. statistical explanation. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science 1962, vol. 3:98-169.
42. Hill C. The post-scientific society. Issues in science and technology on line 2008, vol. 24, no. 1:78-84.
43. Horton R. African traditional thought and western science. Africa 1967, 37:157.
44. Howe C.J., Tolmie A., Rodgers C. The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children: Group interaction and the understanding of motion down an inclined plane. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 1992, 10:113-130.
45. Howson C., Urbach P. Scientific reasoning: a Bayesian approach 2006, Open Court, Chicago. 3rd ed.
46. Hynd C., Alvermann D.E. The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading 1986, 29(5):440-446.
47. Johnson A. Hitting the brakes: engineering design and the production of knowledge 2009, Duke University Press, Durham.
48. Kind P.M. Establishing assessment scales using a novel disciplinary rationale for scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2013, 50(5):530-560. 10.1002/tea.21086.
49. Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Adamson, H., & Barmby, P. (2009). Scientific argumentation, epistemic beliefs and attitudes-a quantitative correlational study of 14-15 year old students. In: Paper presented at the biennial conference of the European Science Education Research Association. Istanbul, Turkey.
50. Klahr D., Dunbar K. Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1988, 12(1):1-48.
51. Klahr D., Fay A.L., Dunbar K. Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology 1993, 24(1):111-146.
52. Klein S.P. Characteristics of hand and machine-assigned scores to college students' answers to open-ended tasks. Probability and statistics: essays in honor of David A. Freedman 2008, 76-89. Institute of Mathematical Studies, Beachwood, OH. D. Nolan, T. Speed (Eds.).
53. Koeppen K., Hartig J., Klieme E., Leutner D. Current issues in competence modeling and assessment. Journal of Psychology 2008, 216(2):61-73.
54. Kuhn D. The skills of argument 1991, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
55. Kuhn D. Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education 2010, 94(5):810-824.
56. Latour, B. (1990). Visualisation and cognition: drawing things together. Representation in scientific activity, pp. 19-68.
57. Latour B. Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science studies 1999, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
58. Lawson A.E. The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1978, 15(1):11-24.
59. Layton D. Science for the people: the origins of the school science curriculum in England 1973, Allen and Unwin, London.
60. Lehrer R., Schauble L. Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences 2006, 371-387. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
61. Lehrer R., Schauble L. Scientific thinking and science literacy handbook of child psychology 2006, 153-196. Wiley, New York.
62. Longino H.E. The fate of knowledge 2002, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
63. Lord Sainsbury of Turville The race to the top: a review of government's science and innovation policies 2007, HM Treasury, London.
64. Lubben F., Millar R. Children's ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education 1996, 18(8):955-968.
65. Lyons T. Different countries same science classes: Students' experience of school science classes in their own words. International Journal of Science Education 2006, 28(6):591-613.
66. Martin M.O., Mullis I.V.S., Foy P., Stanco G.M. TIMSS 2011 international results in science 2012, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
67. Millar R., Lubben F., Gott R., Duggan S. Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Papers in Education 1995, 9(2):207-248.
68. Beyond 2000: science education for the future 1998, King's College London, London. R. Millar, J.F. Osborne (Eds.).
69. Mullis I., Martin M.O., Ruddock G.J., O'Sullivan C.Y., Preuschoff C. TIMSS 2011 assessment frameworks 2009, TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston, MA.
70. National Academy of Sciences National science education standards 1995, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
71. National Academy of Sciences Rising above the gathering storm revisited 2010, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
72. National Academy of Sciences: Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future 2005, National Academy Sciences, Washington, DC.
73. National Commission for Excellence on Education A nation at risk 1983, National Commission for Excellence in Education, Washington, DC.
74. National Research Council Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards 2000, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
75. National Research Council Research on future skill demands 2008, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
76. National Research Council (2012a). Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills. In: Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. (Eds.). Washington, DC: Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education,1; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
77. National Research Council (2012b). A framework for K-12 science Education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
78. Nercessian N. Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. Teaching scientific inquiry: recommendations for research and implementation 2008, 57-79. Sense, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. R.A. Duschl, R.E. Grandy (Eds.).
79. Nersessian N. The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. The cognitive basis of science 2002, 133-153. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. P. Carruthers, S. Stich, M. Siegal (Eds.).
80. Norris S.P., Phillips L.M., Korpan C.A. University students' interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science 2003, 12:123-145.
81. Norris S.P., Phillips L. Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1994, 31(9):947-967.
82. Oaksford M., Chater N. Bayesian rationality: the probabilistic approach to human reasoning 2007, Oxford University Press, New York.
83. OECD. (2012). The PISA 2015 assessment framework: key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. 〈〉. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm.
84. Osborne J. Science teaching methods: A rationale for practices. School Science Review 2011, 93(343):93-103.
85. Osborne J.F., Collins S. Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education 2001, 23(5):441-468.
86. Osborne J.F., Ratcliffe M. Developing effective methods of assessing ideas and evidence. School Science Review 2002, 83(305):113-123.
87. Osborne J.F., Simon S., Collins S. Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education 2003, 25(9):1049-1079.
88. Passmore C., Stewart J. A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2002, 39(3):185-204.
89. Perkins D.N., Salomon G. Are cognitive skills context-bound?. Educational Researcher 1989, 18(1):16-25.
90. Popper K. Obective knowledge: an evolutionary approach 1972, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
91. Posner G.J., Strike K.A., Hewson P.W., Gerzog W.A. Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 1982, 66:211-227.
92. Quellmalz E.S., Pellegrino J.W. Technology and testing. Science 2009, 323:75-79.
93. Quellmalz E.S., Timms M.J., Silberglitt M.D., Buckley B.C. Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2012, 49(3):363-393. 10.1002/tea.21005.
94. Quine W.V. Main trends in recent philosophy: Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review 1951, 60(1):20-43.
95. Roberts G. SET for success: the supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills 2002, HM Treasury, London.
96. Roberts, L., Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (1997). The SEPUP assessment system: an overview. BEAR Report Series, SA-97-1. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
97. Rogers E.M. Science in general education. Science in general education 1948, Wm.C, Brown Co, Dubuque, IA. E.J. McGrath (Ed.).
98. Sandoval W.A., Morrison K. High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2003, 40(4):369-392.
99. Schauble L. Belief revision in children the role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 1990, 49:31-57.
100. Schwab J.J. The concept of the structure of the discipline. Educational Record 1962, 43:197-205.
101. Schwarz B.B., Neuman Y., Biezuner S. Two wrongs may make a right. if they argue together!. Cognition and Instruction 2000, 18(4):461-494.
102. Shayer M. Cognitive acceleration through science education II: Its effects and scope. International Journal of Science Education 1999, 21(8):883-902.
103. Shayer M., Adey P., Wylam H. Group tests of cognitive development: Ideals and realisation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1980, 18(2):157-168.
104. Shayer M., Küchemann D.E., Wylam H. The distribution of Piagetian stages of thinking in the British middle and secondary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology 1976, 46:164-173.
105. Siegel H. The rationality of science critical thinking and science education. Synthese 1989, 80(1):9-42.
106. Songer N.B., Ruiz-Primo M.A. Assessment and science education: Our essential new priority. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2012, 49(6):683-690.
107. Szu E., Osborne J.F. Scientific reasoning and argumentation from a Bayesian perspective. Perspectives on scientific argumentation 2011, 55-71. Springer, Dordrecht. M.S. Khine (Ed.).
108. Thagard P. Explanatory coherence. Reasoning 2008, 471-513. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. J.E. Adler, L.J. Rips (Eds.).
109. Toulmin S. The uses of argument 1958, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
110. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia's Future Australian Education Review. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research.
111. Watson J.D., Crick F.H.C. A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 1953, 171:737-738.
112. Weiss I.R., Pasley J.D., Sean Smith P., Banilower E.R., Heck D.J. A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States 2003, Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC.
113. Wiggins G.P., McTighe J. Understanding by design 2004, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. 2nd ed.
114. Wiliam D. What counts as evidence of educational achievement? The role of constructs in the pursuit of equity in assessment. Review of Research in Education 2010, 34:254-284.
115. Zimmerman C. The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review 1999, 20(1):99-148.
116. Zimmerman C. The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review 2007, 27(2):172-223.
117. Zohar A., David A. Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning 2008, 3(1):59-82.
118. Zoller U., Dori Y.J., Lubezky A. Algorithmic, LOCS and HOCS (chemistry) exam questions: Performance and attitudes of college students. International Journal of Science Education 2002, 24(2):185-203.