Using valid and invalid experimental designs to teach the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 106, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 18-35

  Lorch, Robert F ^a   Lorch, Elizabeth P ^a   Freer, Benjamin Dunham ^b   Dunlap, Emily E ^c   Hodell, Emily C ^a   Calderhead, William J ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b Farleigh Dickinson University   (United States)

^c Department of Psychology   (United States)

^d BEMIDJI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Inquiry in science; Science education; Scientific method; Transfer of learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892926035     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0034375     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181-214. doi:10.3102/00346543070002181.
2. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Children's acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098-1120. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00081.
4. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1.
5. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
6. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1304.
7. Core Content for Science Assessment (Elementary Version 4.1). (2006, August). Retrieved from http://www.education.ky.gov/users/OTL/CCA%204%201%20.FINAL/CCA_41_SC_EL.doc.
8. Dean, D., Jr., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91, 384-397. doi:10.1002/sce.20194.
9. Echevarria, M. (2003). Anomalies as a catalyst for middle school students' knowledge construction and scientific reasoning during science inquiry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 357-374. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.357.
10. German, T. P. (1999). Children's causal reasoning: Counterfactual thinking occurs for "negative" outcomes only. Developmental Science, 2, 442-457. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00088.
11. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6.
12. Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17, 612-634. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.008.
13. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on student learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
14. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 379-424. doi:10.1080/07370000802212669.
15. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 45-83. doi:10.1080/10508406 .2011.591717.
16. Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2011). Finding one's place in transfer space. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 196-204. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011 .00171.x.
17. Klahr, D., Chen, Z., & Toth, E. E. (2001). Cognitive development and science education: Ships that pass in the night or beacons of mutual illumination? In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 75-119). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction. Psychological Science, 15, 661-667. doi:10.1111/j .0956-7976.2004.00737.x.
19. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by Design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495-547. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2.
20. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.674.
21. Kuhn, D. (2005). What needs to be mastered in mastery of scientific method? Psychological Science, 16, 873-874. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280 .2005.01630.x.
22. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D., Jr. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables? Psychological Science, 16, 866-870. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01628.x.
23. Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P., Calderhead, W. J., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Freer, B. D. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher-and lower-achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 90-101. doi:10.1037/a0017972.
24. McDaniel, M. A., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 200-206. doi:10.3758/BF03194052.
25. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: Norton. (Original work published 1936).
27. Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2011). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
29. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1-29. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2101_1.
30. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works: A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59-82. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021815.74806.f6.
31. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77, 1-15. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00852.x.
32. Ross, A. J. (1988). Controlling variables: A meta-analysis of training studies. Review of Educational Research, 58, 405-437. doi:10.3102/00346543058004405.
33. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102-119. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.32.1.102.
34. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0402_1.
35. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers & Education, 46, 426-445. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.011.
36. Strand-Cary, M., & Klahr, D. (2008). Developing elementary science skills: Instructional effectiveness and path independence. Cognitive Development, 23, 488-511. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.005.
37. Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A research-based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 423-459. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_1.
38. Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 149-173. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2102_02.
39. Zimmerman, C. (2005). The development of scientific reasoning: What psychologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning. Retrieved August 17, 2011, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=DBASSE_080105& RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest.
40. Zohar, A., & Aharon-Kravetsky, S. A. (2005). Exploring the effects of cognitive conflict and direct teaching for students of different academic levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 829-855. doi: 10.1002/tea.20075.
41. Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 59-82. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9019-4.
42. Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low-and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18, 337-353. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.001.