Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 217–238 | Cite as

Cognitive Research and Elementary Science Instruction: From the Laboratory, to the Classroom, and Back

  • David Klahr
  • Junlei Li
Article

Abstract

Can cognitive research generate usable knowledge for elementary science instruction? Can issues raised by classroom practice drive the agenda of laboratory cognitive research? Answering yes to both questions, we advocate building a reciprocal interface between basic and applied research. We discuss five studies of the teaching, learning, and transfer of the “Control of Variables Strategy” in elementary school science. Beginning with investigations motivated by basic theoretical questions, we situate subsequent inquiries within authentic educational debates—contrasting hands-on manipulation of physical and virtual materials, evaluating direct instruction and discovery learning, replicating training methods in classroom, and narrowing science achievement gaps. We urge research programs to integrate basic research in “pure” laboratories with field work in “messy” classrooms. Finally, we suggest that those engaged in discussions about implications and applications of educational research focus on clearly defined instructional methods and procedures, rather than vague labels and outmoded “-isms.”

Keywords

science instruction direct instruction discovery learning hands-on science achievement gap 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adelson, R. (2004). Instruction versus exploration in science learning. Monitor on Psychology 35: 34–36.Google Scholar
  2. Alberts, B., and Wheeler, G. (2004, March 4). Letter to California state board from national academy of sciences. Retrieved on April 7, 2004 from http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/letterto-calffromgerry.htm.
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Amsel, E., and Brock, S. (1996). Developmental changes in children’s evaluation of evidence. Cognitive Development 11: 523–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., and Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4: 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson, R. (1968). Computerized instruction and the learning process. American Psychologist 23: 225–239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett, S. M., and Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and Where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin 128: 612–637.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Begley, S. (2004, December 10). The best ways to make schoolchildren learn? We just don’t know. The Wall Street Journal Online, p. B1. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://online. wsj.com/article/0,SB110263537231796249,00.html.
  9. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., and Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 74: 379–439.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of Learning Sciences 2: 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, A. L., and Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 229–272.Google Scholar
  12. Bullock, M., Ziegler, A., and Martin, S. (1992). Scientific thinking. In Weinert, F. E., and Schneider, W. (Eds.), LOGIC Report 9: Assessment Procedures and Results of Wave 6, Max Plank Institute for Psychological Research, Munich.Google Scholar
  13. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood, Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Carnegie Mellon researchers say direct instruction, rather than ‘discovery learning’ is the best way to teach process skills in science (1998, February 13). Retrieved April 19, 2004 from http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-02/CMU-CMRS-130298.php.
  15. Case, R. (1974) Structures and strictures: Some functional limitations on the course of cognitive growth. Cognitive Psychology, 6: 544–573.Google Scholar
  16. Case, R. (1978). Intellectual development from birth to adulthood: A neo-Piagetian interpretation. In Siegler, R. (Ed.), Children’s Thinking: What Develops?, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  17. Case, R. (1992). The Mind’s Staircase: Exploring the Conceptual Underpinnings of Children’s Thought and Knowledge, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  18. Case, R., and Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Serial No. 246).Google Scholar
  19. Cavanagh, S. (2004), November 10). NCLB could alter science teaching. Education Week 24(11): pp. 1: 12–13.Google Scholar
  20. Chen, Z., and Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Children’s acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development 70: 1098–1120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Chinn, C. A., and Malhotra, B. (2001). Epistemologically authentic scientific reasoning. In Crowley, K., Schunn, C. D., and Okada T. (Eds.), Designing for Science: Implications for Everyday, Classroom, and Professional Settings, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 351–392.Google Scholar
  22. Crane, E. (2005). The Science Storm. District Administration, #x0023;3(March).Google Scholar
  23. CTB/McGraw-Hill (2001a). TerraNova CAT Complete Battery Plus Level 15, Form C, CTB/McGraw-Hill, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  24. CTB/McGraw-Hill (2001b). TerraNova CAT Complete Battery Plus Level 16, Form C, CTB/McGraw-Hill, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Elkind, D. (2001). Much too early. Education Next 1: 8–21.Google Scholar
  26. Gagne, R. (1968). Contributions of learning to human development. Psychological Review 75: 177–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Glaser, R., and Resnick, L. (1972). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 23: 207–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., and Stigler, W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher 31: 3–15.Google Scholar
  29. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (1998). TIMSS Science Items: Released Set for Population 2 (Seventh and Eighth Grades). Retrieved on September 16, 2004 from http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995i/ TIMSSPDF/BSItems.pdf.
  30. Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17: 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Janulaw, S. (2004, January 9). Letter to California curriculum commission from California science teachers association. Retrieved on April 7, 2004 from http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/ltr_to_commission.htm.
  32. Klahr, D., and Carver, S. M. (1995). Scientific Thinking about Scientific Thinking. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development #x0023;245, 60: 137–151.Google Scholar
  33. Klahr, D., and Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science 15: 661–667.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Klahr, D., and Simon, H. A. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin 125: 524–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klahr, D., and Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology 20: 362–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klahr, D., and Chen, Z. (2003). Overcoming the “positive capture” strategy in young children: Learning about indeterminacy. Child Development 74: 1256–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klahr, D., Chen, Z., and Toth, E. (2001). Cognitive development and science education: Ships passing in the night or beacons of mutual illumination? In Carver, S. M., and Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: 25 Years of Progress, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  38. Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., and Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology 24: 111–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuhn, D., and Angelev, J. (1976). An experimental study of the development of formal operational thought. Child Development 47: 697–706.Google Scholar
  40. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., and O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The Development of Scientific Thinking. Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Educational Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lagemann, E. C. (1996). Contested terrain: A history of education research in the United States, 1890–1990. Educational Researcher 26: 5.Google Scholar
  43. Li, J., and Klahr, D. (in press). The psychology of scientific thinking: Implications for science teaching and learning. In Rhoton, J., and Shane, C. A. (Eds.), Issues and Trends in science Learning for the 21st Century, NSELA/NSTA.Google Scholar
  44. Loveless, T. (1998). The Use and Misuse of Research in Educational Reform. Brookings Papers on Educational Policy: 1998, pp. 279–317.Google Scholar
  45. Masnick, A. M., Klahr, D., and Morris, B. J. (in press) Separating signal from noise: Children’s understanding of error and variability in experimental outcomes. In Lovett, M., and Shah, P. (Eds.), Thinking With Data, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  46. Masnick, A. M., and 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
  47. Masnick, A. M., and Morris, B. J. (2002). Reasoning from data: The effect of sample size and variability on children’s and adults’ conclusions. In Gray, W. D., and Schunn, C. D. (Eds.), Proceedings of The Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of The Cognitive Science Society, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 643–648.Google Scholar
  48. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In Gentner D., and Stevens A. (Eds.), Mental Models, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 229–324.Google Scholar
  49. McDaniel, M. A., and Schlager, M. S. (1990). Discovery learning and transfer of problem solving skills. Cognition and Instruction 7: 129–159.Google Scholar
  50. Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research 65: 93–127.Google Scholar
  51. National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). The Nation’s Report Card (NAEP): 1996 Assessment Science Public Release Grade 4. Retrieved on September 16, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrls/sampleq/96sci4.pdf.
  52. National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). The Nation’s Report Card (NAEP): 1996 Assessment Science Public Release Grade 8. Retrieved on September 16, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrls/sampleq/96sci8.pdf.
  53. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  54. National Science Teachers Association. (1990, January). Position Statement: Laboratory Science, Retrieved on November 16, 2004 from http://www.nsta.org/postitionstatement&psid=16.
  55. National Science Teachers Association. (2002, July). Position Statement: Elementary School Science. Retrieved on {November} 16, 2004 from http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement/&psid=8.
  56. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Public Law 107–110-January 8, 2002. 107th Congress. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  57. Palinscar, A., and Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1: 117–175.Google Scholar
  58. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2002). Preparing for the STEE grade 7 assessment. In STEE Assessment Handbook, Retrieved March 15, 2004 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/lib/a_and_t/STEEAssessHandbook.pdf.
  59. Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s Theory. In Mussed, P. H. (Ed.), Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology: Vol. 1 (3rd edn.) Wiley, New York, pp 703–772.Google Scholar
  60. Rosnow, R. L., and Rosenthal, R. (1996). Computing contrasts, effect sizes, and counternulls on other people’s published data: General procedures for research consumers. Psychological Methods 1, 331–340.Google Scholar
  61. Ruby, A. (2001). Hands-on Science and Student Achievement, RAND, Santa Monica, CA, Retrieved on December 1, 2004 from http://www.rand.org/publications/RGSD/RGSD159/.
  62. Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Olson, D. R., and Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children’s understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development 64: 1617–1636.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Samarapungavan, A., and Wiers, R. W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science 21: 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology 32: 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., and John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4: 131–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L., and Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 18, 859–882.Google Scholar
  67. Shaklee, H., and Paszek, D. (1985). Covariation judgment: Systematic rule use in middle childhood. Child Development 56: 1229–1240.Google Scholar
  68. Stand and deliver...or let them discover? (2004, November). District Administration, p. 79.Google Scholar
  69. Stickel, S. (2004, January 29). Curriculum Commission: Approval of Criteria for Evaluating k-8 Science Instructional Materials for 2006 Primary Action, Retrieved on April 7, 2004 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/infocibcfirfeb04item01.pdf.
  70. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  71. Strauss, S. (1998). Cognitive development and science education: Toward a middle level model. In Sigel, I., and Renninger, K. A. (Eds.), Damon, W. (Series Ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Child Psychology in Practice,/Wiley, New York, pp. 357–400.Google Scholar
  72. Strauss, V. (2004, February 3). Back to basics vs. hands-on instruction: California rethinks science labs. The Washington Post, p. A12.Google Scholar
  73. Suppes, P., and Groen, G. (1967). Some counting models for first grade performance data on simple addition facts. In Scandura, J. (Ed.), Research In Mathematics Education, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  74. Toth, E., Klahr, D., and Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A cognitively-based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction 18: 423–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Triona, L. M., and Klahr, D. (2002, August). Children’s developing ability to create external representations: Separating what information is included from how the information is represented. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1044.Google Scholar
  76. Triona, L. M., and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tweed, A. (2004, December 15). Direct instruction: is it the most effective science teaching strategy? NSTA WebNews Digest. Retreived on January 3, 2005 from http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/education_story.php?news_story_ID=50045.
  78. Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., and DeLoache, J. S. (1999). Taking a hard look at concreteness: Do concrete objects help young children to learn symbolic relations? In Balter, L., and Tamis-LeMonda, C. (Eds.), Child Psychology: A Handbook of Contemporary Issues, Garland, Harlen, CT, pp. 177–192.Google Scholar
  79. Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., and DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 18: 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wasson, B., Lundvigsen, S. and Hoppe, U. (2003). Designing for change in networked learning environments. In Wasson, B., Ludvigsen S., and Hoppe, U. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003 conference, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 405–409.Google Scholar
  81. Wheeler, G. (2004, January 15). Letter to California Curriculum Commission From National Science Teachers Association, Retrieved on April 7, 2004 from http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/california_letter.htm.
  82. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review 20: 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations