Assessment of scientific reasoning: The effects of task context, data, and design on student reasoning in control of variables

Thinking Skills and Creativity

Volumn 19, Issue , 2016, Pages 175-187

  Zhou, Shaona ^a,b   Han, Jing ^b   Koenig, Kathleen ^c   Raplinger, Amy ^b   Pi, Yuan ^d   Li, Dan ^e   Xiao, Hua ^a   Fu, Zhao ^b   Bao, Lei ^b,e  

^a SOUTH CHINA NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^d CENTRAL CHINA NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^e BEIJING JIAOTONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Assessment context; Control of variables; Multiple variable reasoning; Progression of reasoning; Scientific reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84958150465     PISSN: 18711871     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) Goals of the introductory physics laboratory. American Journal of Physics 1998, 66(6):483-485.
2. Bao L., Cai T., Koenig K., Fang K., Han J., Wang J., et al. Learning and scientific reasoning. Science 2009, 323(5914):586-587.
3. Beichner, R. J. (1999). Student-Centered Activities for Large-Enrollment University Physics (SCALE UP), presented at the Sigma Xi Forum: reshaping undergraduate science and engineering education: tools for Better Learning, Minneapolis, MN (unpublished). Accessible at: . http://ftp://ftp.ncsu.edu/pub/ncsu/beichner/RB/SigmaXi.pdf.
4. Beichner R.J., Saul J.M. Introduction to the SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs) project. Proceedings of the International School of Physics 2003.
5. Boudreaux A., Shaffer P.S., Heron P.R.L., McDermott L.C. Student understanding of control of variables: deciding whether or not a variable influences the behavior of a system. American Journal of Physics 2008, 76(2):163-170.
6. Bybee R., Fuchs B. Preparing the 21st century workforce: a new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2006, 43:349-352.
7. Caramazza A., McCloskey M., Green B. Naive beliefs in sophisticated subjects: misconceptions about trajectories of objects. Cognition 1981, 9(2):117-123.
8. Chen Z., Klahr D. All other things being equal: acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development 1999, 70(5):1098-1120.
9. Dean D., Kuhn D. Direct instruction vs. discovery: the long view. Science Education 2007, 91(3):384-397.
10. Etkina E., Van Heuvelen A. Investigative science learning environment-science process approach to learning physics. Research based reform of university physics 2007, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. E.F. Redish, P. Cooney (Eds.).
11. Hammer D., Elby A., Scherr R.E., Redish E.F. Resources, framing, and transfer. Transfer of learning: research and perspectives 2004, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT. J. Mestre (Ed.).
12. Hestenes D., Wells M., Swackhamer G. Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher 1992, 30:141-158.
13. Klahr D., Dunbar K. Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science 1988, 12(1):1-48.
14. Klahr D., Nigam M. The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science 2004, 15(10):661-667.
15. Kuhn D. Reasoning about multiple variables: control of variables is not the only challenge. Science Education 2007, 91(5):710-726.
16. Kuhn D., Amsel E., O'Loughlin M. The development of scientific thinking skills 1988, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
17. Kuhn D., Dean D. Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables?. Psychological Science 2005, 16(11):866-870.
18. Lazonder A.W., Kamp E. Bit by bit or all at once? Splitting up the inquiry task to promote children's scientific reasoning. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22(6):458-464.
19. McDermott L.C., Shaffer P.S., The Physics Education Group at the University of Washington Physics by inquiry 1996, Vol. I & II. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
20. National Research Council (NRC) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas 2012, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
21. Penner D.E., Klahr D. The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: a study with sinking objects. Child Development 1996, 67(6):2709-2727.
22. Sokoloff D.R., Thornton R.K., Laws P.W. RealTime physics active learning laboratories module 1-2004, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 2nd ed.
23. Toth E.E., Klahr D., Chen Z. Bridging research and practice: a cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction 2000, 18(4):423-459.
24. Wells M., Hestenes D., Swackhamer G. A modeling method for high school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics 1995, 63(8):606-619.
25. Wilhelm P., Beishuizen J.J. Content effects in self-directed inductive learning. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13:381-402.
26. Zimmerman C. The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review 2007, 27:172-223.