Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-4nk8m Total loading time: 0.265 Render date: 2021-10-20T10:47:55.440Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

4 - Cognitive Models of Task Performance for Scientific Reasoning and Discovery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Jacqueline P. Leighton
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Mark J. Gierl
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access

Summary

Science and scientific progress are products of skilled methods of thinking about and acting on the world. The innovation, systematicness, and logic comprising scientific reasoning and discovery are therefore natural goals for governments interested in cultivating a literate, technologically savvy, and economically productive citizenry in the twenty-first century (Hanushek, 2005). As noted in Chapter 1, recent international assessments indicate variability in how well students of different nations have mastered scientific knowledge and skills. For example, U.S. examinees scored below average on two out of three content area sub-scales in the 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), namely, explaining phenomena scientifically and using scientific evidence (see Baldi et al., 2007; see also Organization Economic Cooperation Development [OECD], 2006). This finding is not new. In 1982–1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education, composed of a select group of university presidents, professors, and K–12 teachers, compiled a grim report on the state of science and mathematics' education in the United States: A Nation at Risk. Moreover, the National Research Council's (2007) Taking Science to School indicates that at the time A Nation at Risk (1983) was disseminated, U.S. President Ronald Reagan had already cautioned the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering of an impending decline in science and mathematics achievement, and of the erosion this decline could eventually cause the American people in their standards of living.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Learning Sciences in Educational Assessment
The Role of Cognitive Models
, pp. 115 - 155
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agan, L. & Sneider, C. (2004). Learning about the earth's shape and gravity: A guide for teachers and curriculum developers. Astronomy Education Review, 2, 90–117. Available at http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/new.pl [accessed Jan. 2010].
,American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P.J., & Herget, D. (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context (NCES 2008–016). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164–180.CrossRef
Boyd, S.E., Banilower, E.R., Pasley, J.D., & Weiss, I.R. (2003). Progress and pitfalls: A cross-site look at local systemic change through teacher enhancement. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Chi, M.T.H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.CrossRef
Chinn, C.A. & Malhotra, B.A. (2002). Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 327–343.
Choe, K., Keil, F.C., & Bloom, P. (2005). Children's understanding of the Ulysses conflict. Developmental Science, 8, 387–392.CrossRef
Dawson, M.R.W. (1998). Understanding cognitive science. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Jong, T. & Joolingen, W.R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.CrossRef
Dean, D. & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91, 384–397.CrossRef
Dunbar, K. & Fugelsang, J. (2005). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. Holyoak & R.G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 706–725). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dunbar, K. & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery strategies. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P.J., & Hoffman, R.R. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Flores, F., Tovar, M., & Gallegos, L. (2003). Representation of the cell and its processes in high school students: An integrated view. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 269–286.CrossRef
Garcia-Mila, M. & Andersen, C. (2007). Developmental change in note taking during scientific inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1035–1058.CrossRef
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007:Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001 Revised). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Gorman, M.E., Tweney, R.D., Gooding, D.C., & Kincannon, A.P. (Eds.). (2005). Scientific and technological thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grasshoff, G. & May, M. (1995). From historical case studies to systematic methods of discovery. Working notes: AAAI spring symposium on systematic methods of scientific discovery (pp. 46–57). Stanford, CA: AAAI.
Grigg, W., Lauko, M., & Brockway, D. (2006). The nation's report card: Science 2005 (NCES 2006–466). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hanushek, E.A. (2005). The economics of school quality. German Economic Review, 6, 269–286.CrossRef
Kanari, Z. & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 748–769.CrossRef
Kim, J.J., Crasco, L.M., Smith, R.B., Johnson, G., Karantonis, A., & Leavitt, D.J. (2001). Academic excellence for all urban students: Their accomplishments in science and mathematics. Norwood, MA: Systemic Research.
Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klahr, D., Fay, A.L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klahr, D. & Simon, H.A. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 524–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klahr, D. & Simon, H.A. (2001). What have psychologists (and others) discovered about the process of scientific discovery?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klahr, D., Triona, L.M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical vs. virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koslowski, B. & Masnick, A. (2002). The development of causal reasoning. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 257–281). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know?Psychological Science, 12, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, D. (2002). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 371–393). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference. Journal of Cognition & Development, 5, 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables?Psychological Science, 16, 866–870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, D. & Franklin, S. (2006). The second decade: What develops (and how). In W. Damon, R.M. Lerner, (Series Eds.), D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception and language (6th ed.) (pp. 953–993). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Andersen, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60, 1–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking?Cognitive Development, 23, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D., Katz, J.B., DeanJr., D. (2004). Developing reason. Thinking & Reasoning, 10, 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D. & Phelps, E. (1982). The development of problem-solving strategies. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 17, 1– 44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 9, 285–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulkarni, D. & Simon, H.A. (1988). The process of scientific discovery: The strategy of experimentation. Cognitive Science, 12, 139–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, P., Simon, H.A., Bradshaw, G.L., & Zytkow, J.M. (1987). Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (1998). Reasoning about structure and function: Children's conceptions of gears. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 3–25.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, J. & Bisanz, G. L. (2003). Children's and adults' knowledge and reasoning about the ozone layer and its depletion. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, J. P., Gokiert, R.J., & Cui, Y. (2007). Using exploratory and confirmatory methods to identify the cognitive dimensions in a large-scale science assessment. International Journal of Testing, 7, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masnick, A.M. & Klahr, D. (2003). Error matters: An initial exploration of elementary school children's understanding of experimental error. Journal of Cognition and Development, 4, 67–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masnick, A.M. & Morris, B.J. (2002). Reasoning from data: The effect of sample size and variability on children's and adults' conclusions. In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 643–648).
Minsky, M. (June, 1974). A framework for representing knowledge. MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306. Accessed on January 2, 2010, at http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html.
,National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
,National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
,National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Newcombe, N.S., Ambady, N., Eccles, J., Gomez, L., Klahr, D., Linn, M., Miller, K., & Mix, K. (2009). Psychology's role in mathematics and science education. American Psychologist, 64, 538–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Oxford, UK: Prentice-Hall.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub Law No. 107–110 (2002, January). Retrieved April 11, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107–110.pdf
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2006). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world: Volume 1: Analysis. Author.
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). Education today: The OECD perspective. Author.
Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York City: The Free Press.
Reid, D.J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 9–20.CrossRef
Resnick, L.B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102–119.CrossRef
Siegler, R. (1998). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
Siegler, R. (2006). Microgenetic studies of learning. In D. Kuhn and R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 2: Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 170–194.CrossRef
Simon, H.A. (1977). Models of discovery. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.CrossRef
Simon, H.A. & Lea, G. (1974). Problem solving and rule induction: A unified view. In L.W. Gregg (Ed.), Knowledge and cognition (pp. 105–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Snow, R.E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology, (pp. 243–310). London, England: Prentice Hall.
Stanovich, K.E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stathopoulou, C. & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 255–281.CrossRef
Tschirgi, J.E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51, 1–10.CrossRef
Joolingen, W.R. & de Jong, T. (1997) An extended dual search space model of scientific discovery learning. Instructional Science, 25, 307–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Development Review, 27, 172–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, C. & Glaser, R. (2001). Testing positive versus negative claims: A preliminary investigation of the role of cover story in the assessment of experimental design skills (Tech. Rep. No. 554). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×