Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:53:00.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Improving Students’ Scientific Thinking

from Part II - Science and Math

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2019

By
David Klahr ,
Corinne Zimmerman  and
Bryan J. Matlen
Edited by
John Dunlosky  and
Katherine A. Rawson
John Dunlosky
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Katherine A. Rawson
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Get access

Summary

This chapter offers a framework for addressing two fundamental questions: What is scientific thinking? and How can it be taught? To answer the first question the authors offer a broad framework that characterizes the essential aspects of scientific thinking and reviews the developmental origins of scientific thinking. To answer the second question they describe a few representative examples of research on teaching science in specific domains.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education , pp. 67 - 99
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy: A project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1990). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amsel, E. & Brock, S. (1996). The development of evidence evaluation skills. Cognitive Development, 11, 523–550.Google Scholar
Bulloch, M. J. & Opfer, J. E. (2009). What makes relational reasoning smart? Revisiting the perceptual‐to‐relational shift in the development of generalization. Developmental Science, 12(1), 114–122.Google Scholar
Bullock, M. & Gelman, R. (1979). Preschool children’s assumptions about cause and effect: Temporal ordering. Child Development, 50(1), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, M. & Ziegler, A. (1999). Scientific reasoning: Developmental and individual differences. In Weinert, F. E. & Schneider, W. (eds.), Individual development from 3 to 12: Findings from the Munich longitudinal study (pp. 38–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989) “An experiment is when you try it and see if it works”: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z. & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Children’s acquisition of the control of variables strategy, Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120.Google Scholar
Chen, Z. & Klahr, D. (2008). Remote transfer of scientific-reasoning and problem-solving strategies in children. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 420.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes. In Vosniadou, S. (ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 49–70). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Chouinard, M. M. (2007). Children’s questions: A mechanism for cognitive development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72, 1–129.Google Scholar
Christie, S. & Gentner, D. (2010). Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 356–373.Google Scholar
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. The American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257.Google Scholar
Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1041–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croker, S. & Buchanan, H. (2011). Scientific reasoning in a real world context: The effect of prior belief and outcome on children’s hypothesis testing strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 409–424.Google Scholar
DeLoache, J. S. (1987). Rapid change in the symbolic functioning of very young children. Science, 238(4833), 1556–1557.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Viad, J. (eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 461–493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ero-Tolliver, I., Lucas, D., & Schauble, L. (2013). Young children’s thinking about decomposition: Early modeling entrees to complex ideas in science. Research in Science Education, 43, 2137–2152.Google Scholar
Fay, A. & Klahr, D. (1996). Knowing about guessing and guessing about knowing: Preschoolers’ understanding of indeterminacy. Child Development, 67, 689–716.Google Scholar
French, L. A. & Woodring, S. D. (2013). Science education in the early years. In Saracho, O. N. & Spodek, B. (eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children, 3rd edn (pp. 179–196). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gadgil, S. M., Nokes, T. J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Coley, J. D. (1990). The importance of knowing a dodo is a bird: Categories and inferences in 2-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 796.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34, 752–775.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R. W., Markman, A. B., Levidow, B. B., Wolff, P., & Forbus, K. D. (1997). Analogical reasoning and conceptual change: A case study of Johannes Kepler. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 3–40.Google Scholar
Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Gobert, J. D. & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39–53.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (2000). The scientist in the crib: What early learning tells us about the mind. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. & Sobel, D. M. (2000). Detecting blickets: How young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Development, 71(5), 1205–1222.Google Scholar
Goswami, U. (1991). Analogical reasoning: What develops? A review of research and theory. Child Development, 62(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Greif, M. L., Kemler Nelson, D. G., Keil, F. C., & Gutierrez, F. (2006). What do children want to know about animals and artifacts? Domain-specific requests for information. Psychological Science, 17, 455.Google Scholar
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–822.Google Scholar
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2015). Young children’s ideas about physical science concepts. In Trundle, K. C. & Sackes, M. (eds.), Research in early childhood science education (pp. 67–97). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., & Lillard, A. S. (2015). Do children learn from pretense?, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 130, 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.09.004Google Scholar
Horton, C. (2007) Student alternative conceptions in chemistry. California Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 23–38.Google Scholar
Inagaki, K. & Hatano, G. (2008). Conceptual change in naïve biology. In Vosniadou, S. (ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 240–262). New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jee, B. D., Uttal, D. H., Gentner, D., Manduca, C., Shipley, T. F., & Sageman, B. (2013). Finding faults: Analogical comparison supports spatial concept learning in geoscience. Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 175–187.Google Scholar
Jirout, J. & Klahr, D. (2012). Children’s scientific curiosity: In search of an operational definition of an elusive concept. Developmental Review, 32, 125–160.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–254.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C., Smith, W. C., Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1998). Two dogmas of conceptual empiricism: Implications for hybrid models of the structure of knowledge. Cognition, 65(2), 103–135.Google Scholar
Keil, F.C. & Wilson, R.A. (eds.) (2000). Explanation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelemen, D., Emmons, N., Seston, R., & Ganea, P. (2014). Young children can be taught basic natural selection using a picture storybook intervention. Psychological Science, 25, 893–902.Google Scholar
King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klahr, D. (1994). Searching for the cognition in cognitive models of science. Psycoloquy, 5(94), 7–13.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. & Carver, S. (1995). Scientific thinking about scientific thinking. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(4), 137–151.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.Google Scholar
Klahr, D., Fay, A., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146.Google Scholar
Klahr, D., Zimmerman, C., & Jirout, J. (2011). Educational interventions to advance children’s scientific thinking. Science, 333, 971–975.Google 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.Google Scholar
Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koslowski, B. (2012) How explanation makes information evidentially relevant. In Proctor, R. & Capaldi, J. (eds.), The psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 112–136). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koslowski, B. (2013). Scientific reasoning: Explanation, confirmation bias, and scientific practice. In Feist, G. & Gorman, M. (eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 151–192). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Koslowski, B., Marasia, J., Chelenza, M., & Dublin, R. (2008). Information becomes evidence when an explanation can incorporate it into a causal framework. Cognitive Development, 23, 472–487.Google Scholar
Kotovsky, L. & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67(6), 2797–2822. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131753Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674–689.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2007). Reasoning about multiple variables: Control of variables is not the only challenge. Science Education, 91, 710–726.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2011). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In Goswami, U. (ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development, 2nd edn (pp. 497–523). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables?, Psychological Science, 16, 866–870.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, v–128Google Scholar
Kurtz, K. J. & Gentner, D. (2013). Detecting anomalous features in complex stimuli: The role of structured comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(3), 219.Google Scholar
Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2000). Developing model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 39–48.Google Scholar
Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 635–679.Google Scholar
Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96, 701–724.Google Scholar
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23, 512–529.Google Scholar
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Petrosino, A. J. (2001). Reconsidering the role of experiment in science education. In Crowley, K., Schunn, C., & Okada, T. (eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 251–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lewis, E. L. & Linn, M. C. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: Implications for curricular improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657–677.Google Scholar
Li, J., Klahr, D., & Siler, S. (2006). What lies beneath the science achievement gap? The challenges of aligning science instruction with standards and tests. Science Educator, 15, 1–12.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S.O., Ammirati, R., & David, M. (2012). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Journal of School Psychology, 1, 7–36.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98.Google Scholar
Lorch, R.F. Jr., Lorch, E.P., Calderhead, W.J. et al. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher- and lower-achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 90–101.Google Scholar
Masnick, A. M., Klahr, D., & Morris, B. J. (2007). Separating signal from noise: Children’s understanding of error and variability in experimental outcomes. In Lovett, M. & Shaw, P. (eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Masnick, A. M., Klahr, D, & Knowles, E. R. (2016). Data-driven belief revision in children and adults. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18(1), 87–109.Google Scholar
Masnick, A. M. & Morris, B. J. (2008). Investigating the development of data evaluation: The role of data characteristics. Child Development, 79, 1032–1048.Google Scholar
Matlen, B.J., Vosniadou, S., Jee, B., & Ptouchkina, M. (2011). Enhancing the comprehension of science text through visual analogies. In Carlson, L., Holscher, C., and Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2910–2915).Google Scholar
Matlen, B.J., Gentner, D., & Franconeri, S. (2014). Structure mapping in visual comparison: Embodied correspondence lines? Poster presented at the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Pasadena, California, July 22–25.Google Scholar
Matlen, B.J. & Klahr, D. (2013) Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition and transfer of experimentation skills. Instructional Science, 41, 621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9248-zGoogle Scholar
Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93–127.Google Scholar
Metz, K. E. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children’s science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 151–163.Google Scholar
Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In Duit, R., Goldberg, F., & Niedderer, H. (eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies, proceedings of an international workshop (pp. 110–128). Kiel: IPN.Google Scholar
Morris, B. J., Croker, S., Masnick, A. M., & Zimmerman, C. (2012). The emergence of scientific reasoning. In Kloos, H., Morris, B. J., and Amaral, J. L. (eds.), Current topics in children’s learning and cognition (pp. 61–82). Rijeka: InTech.Google Scholar
Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Tweney, R. D. (1977). Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 85–95.Google Scholar
Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Tweney, R. D. (1978). Consequences of confirmation and disconfirmation in a simulated research environment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 395–406.Google Scholar
NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children). (2012). All criteria document. https://www.naeyc.org/our-work/families/10-naeyc-program-standardsGoogle Scholar
NEGP (National Education Goals Panel). (1993). Promises to keep: Creating high standards for American students. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.Google Scholar
NEGP (National Education Goals Panel) (1995). The 1995 national education goals report: Building a nation of learners. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) (2008). Ready, Set, SCIENCE! Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) (2015) Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18687Google Scholar
NSTA (National Science Teachers Association). (2007). NSTA position statement: The integral role of laboratory investigations in science instruction. www.nsta.org/about/positions/laboratory.aspx. Accessed March 18, 2013.Google Scholar
Opfer, J. E. & Siegler, R. S. (2004). Revisiting preschoolers’ living things concept: A microgenetic analysis of conceptual change in basic biology. Cognitive Psychology, 49(4), 301–332.Google Scholar
Osterhaus, C., Koerber, S., & Sodian, B. (2017). Scientific thinking in elementary school: Children’s social cognition and their epistemological understanding promote experimentation skills. Developmental Psychology, 53(3), 450–462.Google Scholar
Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.Google Scholar
Penner, D. E. & Klahr, D. (1996a). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: A study with sinking objects. Child Development, 67, 2709–2727.Google Scholar
Penner, D. E. & Klahr, D. (1996b). When to trust the data: Further investigations of system error in a scientific reasoning task. Memory and Cognition, 24, 655–668.Google Scholar
Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 429–449.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1929 ). The child’s conception of the world. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Piekny, J. & Maehler, C. (2013). Scientific reasoning in early and middle childhood: The development of domain-general evidence evaluation, experimentation, and hypothesis generation skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 153–179.Google Scholar
Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Silberglitt, M. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2012). Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 363–393.Google Scholar
Raghavan, K. & Glaser, R. (1995). Model–based analysis and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum. Science Education, 79(1), 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakison, D. H., Lupyan, G., Oakes, L. M., & Walker-Andrews, A. S. (2008). Developing object concepts in infancy: An associative learning perspective [Monograph]. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 73(1), i–127.Google Scholar
Renken, M. D. & Nunez, N. (2010). Evidence for improved conclusion accuracy after reading about rather than conducting a belief-inconsistent simple physics experiment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 792–811.Google Scholar
Richland, L. E. & McDonough, I. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28–43.Google Scholar
Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Olson, D. R., & Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children’s understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development, 64, 1617–1636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samarapungavan, A., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Patrick, H. (2008). Learning science through inquiry in kindergarten. Science Education, 92, 868–908.Google Scholar
Santau, A. O., Maerten-Rivera, J. L., Bovis, S., & Orend, J. (2014). A mile wide or an inch deep? Improving elementary preservice teachers’ science content knowledge within the context of a science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9402-3Google Scholar
Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102–119.Google Scholar
Schuster, D., Cobern, W. W., Adams, B. A., Undreiu, A., & Pleasants, B. (2017). Learning of core disciplinary ideas: Efficacy comparison of two contrasting modes of science instruction. Research in Science Education, 43, 1–47.Google Scholar
Schwichow, M., Croker, S., Zimmerman, C., Höffler, T., & Härtig, H. (2016). The control-of-variables strategy: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 39, 37–63.Google Scholar
Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., Croker, S., & Härtig, H. (2016). What students learn from hands-on activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 980–1002.Google Scholar
Shtulman, A. (2017). Scienceblind: Why our intuitive theories about the world are so often wrong. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Siler, S. & Klahr, D. (2012). Detecting, classifying and remediating children’s explicit and implicit misconceptions about experimental design. In Proctor, R. W. & Capaldi, E. J. (eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 137–180). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siler, S., Klahr, D., & Matlen, B. (2013). Conceptual change in experimental design: From engineering goal to science goals. In Vosniadau, S. (ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R. & Schweingruber, H. A. (eds.) (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Sloutsky, V. M. & Fisher, A. V. (2004). Induction and categorization in young children: A similarity-based model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 166–188.Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., & Landau, B. (1996). Naming in young children: A dumb attentional mechanism? Cognition, 60(2), 143–171.Google Scholar
Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children’s differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753–766.Google Scholar
Sutherland, S. L. & Friedman, O. (2013). Just pretending can be really learning: Children use pretend play as a source for acquiring generic knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 49(9), 1660–1668. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0030788Google Scholar
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368.Google Scholar
Triona, L. & Klahr, D. (2008). Hands-on science: Does it matter what the students’ hands are on? The Science Education Review, 6(4), 126–130.Google Scholar
Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51, 1–10.Google Scholar
Uttal, D. H., Fisher, J. A., & Taylor, H. A. (2006). Words and maps: Children’s mental models of spatial information acquired from maps and from descriptions. Developmental Science, 9(2), 221–235.Google Scholar
Vendetti, M. S., Matlen, B. J., Richland, L. E., & Bunge, S. A. (2015). Analogical reasoning in the classroom: Insights from cognitive science. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(2), 100–106.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S. (ed.) (2013). International handbook of research on conceptual change. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123–183.Google Scholar
Wiser, M. & Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced. In Vosiadou, S. (ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205–239). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wright, S. B., Matlen, B. J., Baym, C. L., Ferrer, E., & Bunge, S. A. (2008). Neural correlates of fluid reasoning in children and adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 1(8). http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.008.2007Google Scholar
Zimmerman, C. & Croker, S. (2014). A prospective cognition analysis of scientific thinking and the implications for teaching and learning science. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 13, 245–257.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, C. & Cuddington, K. (2007). Ambiguous, circular and polysemous: Students’ definitions of the “balance of nature” metaphor. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 393–406.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, C. & Klahr, D. (2018). Development of scientific thinking. In Ghetti, S. (ed.), The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, Vol. 3: Developmental & Social Psychology (pp. 223–248). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, C., Raghavan, K., & Sartoris, M. L. (2003). The impact of the MARS curriculum on students’ ability to coordinate theory and evidence. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1247–1271.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save 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 saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save 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 saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×