Research in Science Education

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 609–632 | Cite as

Thinking Like a Scientist: Using Vee-Maps to Understand Process and Concepts in Science

Article

Abstract

It is considered important for students to participate in scientific practices to develop a deeper understanding of scientific ideas. Supporting students, however, in knowing and understanding the natural world in connection with generating and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations is not easy. In addition, writing in science can help students to understand such connections as they communicate what they know and how they know it. Although tools such as vee-maps can scaffold students’ efforts to design investigations, we know less about how these tools support students in connecting scientific ideas with the evidence they are generating, how these connections develop over time, or how writing can be used to encourage such connections. In this study, we explored students’ developing ability to reason scientifically by examining the relationship between students’ understanding of scientific phenomena and their understanding of how to generate and evaluate evidence for their ideas in writing. Three high school classes completed three investigations. One class used vee-mapping each time, one used vee-mapping once, and one did not use vee-mapping. Students’ maps and written reports were rated for understanding of relevant science procedural and conceptual ideas. Comparisons between groups and over time indicate a positive relationship between improved procedural and conceptual understanding. Findings also indicate that improved procedural understanding preceded improved conceptual understanding, and thus, multiple experiences were needed for students to connect evidence and explanation for science phenomena.

Keywords

Scaffolds Scientific inquiry Scientific content knowledge Scientific process knowledge Vee-maps Writing in science 

References

  1. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All things being equal: acquision and transfer of the control variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery strategies. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovshy (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109–143). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into inquiry: scaffolding supports beginning efforts to implement inquiry in the classroom. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 49–53.Google Scholar
  6. Farber, P. (2003). Teaching evolution and the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 65(5), 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research Development, 52(2), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeanpierre, B., Oberauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. (2007). A study of the effect of sustained, whole-school, professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahle, J. B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: does standards-based teaching make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 1019–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klahr, D., Fay, A., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: a developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition & Instruction, 9, 285–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Anderson, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 245, 60(40), 1–128.Google Scholar
  16. Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 33, 541–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, B. D. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21, 109–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Penner, D. E., & Klahr, D. (1996). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: a study with sinking objects. Child Development, 67(6), 1207–2727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perlman, C. C. (2002). Performance assessment: Designing appropriate performance tasks and scoring rubrics. U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  24. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: what have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings. Philadelphia: Routledge Palmer, Taylor & Francis, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Roehrig, G., Luft, J. A., & Edwards, M. (2001). Versatile vee maps. The Science Teacher, 68(1), 28–31.Google Scholar
  27. Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: the role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49(1), 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghaven, K., & Reiner, M. (1991a). Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 201–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghaven, K. (1991b). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghaven, K., & Reiner, M. (1992). The integration of knowledge and experimentation strategies in understanding a physical system. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singer, S. (2005). Needing a new approach to science labs. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 10.Google Scholar
  34. Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: a complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yager, R. E., & Akcay, H. (2010). The advantages of an inquiry approach for science instruction in middle grades. School Science and Mathematics, 110(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yore, L. D. (2003). Examining the literary component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ToledoToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations