Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the apt epistemic processes of data literacy in elementary school students

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Educating young learners to reason with data is increasingly important given our data-saturated society; yet teachers need support in recognizing and facilitating apt epistemic performance (which involves the beliefs and practices necessary to successfully establish, critique, and use data and knowledge within a domain) regarding data literacy with elementary students. In this exploratory study, we aimed to understand (a) what apt epistemic processes within data literacy look like in practice with children, and (b) to what extent a curriculum built on a simulation-based data analysis intervention (where students engage in experimentation and data analyses through the use of simulations) promotes the epistemic processes of data literacy. We used the Apt-AIR framework, which expounds on the components needed for successful epistemic education, as a tool to identify students’ apt epistemic processes. The results illustrate that elementary students were able to activate cognitive, emotional, and—to a lesser extent—metacognitive and collaborative epistemic processes related to data literacy skills in this context. Additionally, the design features embedded in the experimentation lesson were more successful in engaging students in apt epistemic processes; yet the data analysis lesson, while engaging students in fewer processes overall, was successful in promoting students’ ability to make accurate inferences using an aggregate view of data. We discuss the trends in the apt epistemic processes related to data literacy that emerged and their implications for instruction and learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The deidentified datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Barnes, N., Fives, H., Mabrouk-Hattab, S., & Saizde LaMora, K. (2020). Teachers’ epistemic cognition in situ: Evidence from classroom assessment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multi-faceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, A. & Orion, N. (2013). Teachers’ voices on integrating metacognition into science education, International Journal of Science Education, 1–33.

  • Bendixen, L. D. (2016). Teaching for epistemic change in elementary classrooms. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 281–299). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendixen, L. D., & Feucht, F. C. (Eds.). (2010). Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, D., & Arcavi, A. (2001). Junior high school students’ construction of global views of data and data representations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45(1–3), 35–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Hewitt, J. (1997). Postmodernism, knowledge building, and elementary science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehl, M., & Fives, H. (2016). The role of epistemic cognition in teacher learning and praxis. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 247–264). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., & Duncan, R. G. (2020). Education for a “post-truth” world: New directions for research and practice. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20940683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottone, A. M., Yoon, S. A., Coulter, B., Shim, J., & Carman, S. (2021). Building system capacity with a modeling-based inquiry program for elementary students: A case study. Systems. https://doi.org/10.3390/systerns9010009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerr, H. M., Delmas, R., & Makar, K. (2017). A modeling approach to the development of students’ informal inferential reasoning. Statistics Education Research Journal, 16(2), 86–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil, E., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2011). Explanations and context in the emergence of students’ informal inferential reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13, 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, S. E., & Gorman, J. M. (2021). Denying to the grave. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A. (2016). Interacting epistemic systems within and beyond the classroom. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 265–277). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2011). Self-regulation of learning with computer-based learning environments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011, 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students’ self- regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45, 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Introduction to epistemic cognition. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 1–16). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K. (2016). Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct: Advancements and challenges. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 19–38). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Education Sciences/National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development.

  • Jagadish, H. V., Gehrke, J., Labrinidis, A., Papakonstantinou, Y., Patel, J. M., Ramakrishnan, R., & Shahabi, C. (2014). Big data and its technical challenges. Communications of the ACM, 57(7), 86–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., & Laru, J. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual- and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittleson, J. M. (2011). Epistemological beliefs of third-grade students in an investigation-rich classroom. Science Education, 95, 1026–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konold, C., Higgins, T., Russell, S. J., & Khalil, K. (2015). Data seen through different lenses. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(3), 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. R., & Wilkerson, M. (2018). Data use by middle and secondary students in the digital age: A status report and future prospects. Commissioned Paper for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Board on Science Education, Committee on Science Investigations and Engineering Design for Grades. Washington, D.C,

  • Lobczowski, N. G., Allen, E. M., Firetto, C. M., Greene, J., & Murphy, P. K. (2020). An exploration of social regulation of learning during scientific argumentation discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 63, 101925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makar, K., Bakker, A., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2011). The reasoning behind informal statistical inference. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1–2), 152–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makar, K., & Rubin, A. (2018). Learning about statistical inference. In D. Ben-Zvi, K. Makar, & J. Garfield (Eds.), International handbook of research in statistics education (pp. 261–294). Springer International Handbooks of Education.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., Boscolo, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ronconi, L. (2013). Besides knowledge: A cross-sectional study on the relations between epistemic beliefs, achievement goals, self-beliefs, and achievement in science. Instructional Science, 41, 49–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Paparistodemou, E. (2015). Developing students’ reasoning about samples and sampling in the context of informal inferences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(3), 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. (2011). Disentangling robust developmental constraints from the instructionally mutable: Young children’s epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 50–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, T. (2017). The death of expertise The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Penguin Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paparistodemou, E., & Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2008). Developing young students’ informal inference skills in data analysis. Statistics Education Research Journal, 7(2), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 486–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, A. (2020). Learning to reason with data: How did we get here and what do we know? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(1), 154–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W., & Veen, J. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers and Education, 58, 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96, 488–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2014). Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3), 383–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Understanding and promoting thinking about knowledge. Review of Research in Education, 40, 457–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seel, N. M. (2017). Model-based learning: A synthesis of theory and research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 931–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scott, L. (1994). Pupils’ images of scientific epistemology. International Journal of Science Education, 16(3), 361–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, A., & Janssen, J. (2019). A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Educational Research Review, 27(1), 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2015). Teacher regulation of multiple computer-supported collaborating groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J., & Fitzallen, N. (2015). Statistical software and mathematics education: Affordances for learning. In L. English & D. Kirschner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 563–594). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, A. F. (2020). Educating data scientists and data literate citizens for a new generation of data. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(1), 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S. A., Anderson, E., Koehler-Yom, J., Evans, C., Park, M., Sheldon, J., Schoenfeld, I., Wendel, D., Scheintaub, H., & Klopfer, E. (2017). Teaching about complex systems is no simple matter: Building effective professional development for computer-supported complex systems instruction. Instructional Science, 45(1), 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was largely funded by the National Science Foundation, grant number 1513043, and, in part, by the Litzsinger Road Ecology Foundation. We would like to thank Sarit Barzilai for her important critical feedback and consultation during the revision process. We would also like to thank the developers of the modeling tool and other researchers who have been involved in various aspects of this work, including Daniel Wendel, Eric Klopfer, and Irene Lee.

Funding

This study was funded by NSF-DRL #1513043.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, 3700 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Amanda M. Cottone, Susan A. Yoon & Jooeun Shim

  2. Litzsinger Road Ecology Center, Missouri Botanical Garden, Ladue, MO, 63124, USA

    Bob Coulter & Stacey Carman

Authors
  1. Amanda M. Cottone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan A. Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jooeun Shim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bob Coulter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stacey Carman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda M. Cottone.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cottone, A., Yoon, S., Shim, J. et al. Evaluating the apt epistemic processes of data literacy in elementary school students. Instr Sci 51, 1–37 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09610-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09610-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation