What Do Young Science Students Need to Learn About Variables?

Science Education

Volumn 100, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 392-403

  Kuhn, Deanna ^a  

^a Howard Hughes Medical Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84958146316     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21207     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Andrews, G., Halford, G., Murphy, K., & Knox, K. (2009). Integration of weight and distance information in young children: The role of relational complexity. Cognitive Development, 24, 49-60.
2. Berland, L., & McNeill, K. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94, 765-793.
3. Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2011). Argumentation and reasoning in life and in school: Implications for the design of school science learning environments. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation. Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Springer.
4. Donnelly, D., Linn, M., & Ludvigsen, S. (2014). Impacts and characteristics of computer-based science inquiry learning environments for precollege students. Review of Educational Research, 84, 572-608.
5. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
6. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.
7. Fernbach, P., Darlow, A., & Sloman, S. (2010). Neglect of alternative causes in predictive but not diagnostic reasoning. Psychological Science, 21, 329-336.
8. Ford, M. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 207-245.
9. Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1-32.
10. Goksun, T., George, N., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. (2013). Forces and motion: How young children understand causal events. Child Development, 84, 1285-1295.
11. Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Roberts, R. (2003). Concepts of evidence. University of Durham. Retrieved from http://www.dur.ac.uk/richard.gott/Evidence/cofev.htm
12. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.
13. Jansen, B., vanDuijvenvoorde, A., & Huizenga, H. (2012). Development of decision making: Sequential versus integrative rules. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 187-100.
14. Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
15. Keil, F. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227-254.
16. Koerber, S., Sodian, B., Thoermer, C., & Nett, U. (2005). Scientific reasoning in young children. Preschoolers' ability to evaluate covariation evidence. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 141-152.
17. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Kuhn, D. (2007). Reasoning about multiple variables: Control of variables is not the only challenge. Science Education, 91, 710-726.
19. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810-824.
20. Kuhn, D. (2011). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
21. Kuhn, D. (2012). The development of causal reasoning. WIREs Cognitive Science, 3, 327-335. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1160
22. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. Kuhn, D., & Katz, J. (2009). Are self-explanations always beneficial? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 386-394.
24. Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cognition and Instruction, 26, 512-559.
25. Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2009). The dual components of developing strategy use: Production and inhibition. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26. Kuhn, D., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2009). Coordinating effects of multiple variables: A skill fundamental to causal and scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 268-284.
27. Kuhn, D., Ramsey, S., & Arvidsson, T. S. (2015). Developing multivariable thinkers. Cognitive Development, 35, 92-110.
28. Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 285-332.
29. Lafon, P., Chasseigne, G., & Mullet, E. (2004). Functional learning among children, adolescents, and young adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 334-347.
30. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy: Supporting development in learning contexts. In K. A. Renninger & I. Sigel (Vol. Eds.) & W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
31. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). The development of scientific thinking. In L. Liben (Vol. Ed.) & R. Lerner (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (Vol. 2). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
32. Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 464-470.
33. Manz, E. (2014). Representing student argumentation as functionally scientific activity. Review of Educational Research. doi: 10.3102/0034654314558490
34. Mata, R., vonHelversen, B., & Rieskamp, J. (2011). When easy comes hard: The development of adaptive strategy selection. Child Development, 82, 687-700.
35. McElhaney, K., & Linn, M. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 745-770.
36. Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62.
37. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177-196.
38. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
39. Sandoval, W. (2014). Science education's need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98, 383-387.
40. Sandoval, W. (2015). Epistemic goals. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
41. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102-119.
42. Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York, NY: Macmillan.
43. Wellman, H., & Liu, D. (2007). Reasoning as informed by the early development of explanations. In A. Gopnik & L. Schulz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44. Wilkening, F., & Cacchione, T. (2011). Children's intuitive physics. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
45. Williams, J., Lombrozo, T., & Rehder, R. (2010). Why does explaining help learning? Insight from an explanation impairment effect. Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone, Eds.; pp. 2906-2911). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
46. Williams, J., Lombrozo, T., & Rehder, R. (2013). The hazards of explanation: Overgeneralization in the face of exceptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1006-1014.
47. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172-223.