Upload
ivona-vukotic
View
141
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Daenna Kuhn - Scientific thinking
Citation preview
SCIENTIFIC THINKING 1
A49CL / Cognition across the Lifespan
‘What does Kuhn mean when she talks about 'Scientific Thinking'? With reference to metacognitive development, present some ideas for how teachers might encourage 'scientific thinking' in the classroom’.
HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITYALP: English School of Business, Belgrade
April, 2014.
Ivona Vukotic, Student ID: H00147600
BA in Management and Psychology
SCIENTIFIC THINKING 2
In order to introduce scientific thinking, we must first mention the term metacognition, as
they are closely related. The word metacognition, in its simplest form, means thinking about
thinking. Metacognition occurs in everyday situations; for instance, while reading a story you
suddenly realise that you must have missed something, because what you read does not make
sense. Now that you became aware of the confusion, you will return and re-read the story. In
this example, while you read, you are thinking about the story. However, at some point you'll
catch yourself thinking about the actual reading of the story. That means that you have
entered into the realm of metacognition. The ability to think about your own thinking, enables
you to make a decision, such as to re-read the story and question the facts and information
you have acquired, in order to make sense of it.
Deanna Kuhn’s stance on the nature of metacognition is that this ability is not given by
birth, but develops with age, thus, she conducted various studies and researches in
order to find out more about the development of these metacognitive skills.
Growing up, children start exploring the world and building theories, which are being
revised as children encounter new evidence. Early theory revision process bears a
strong resemblance to scientific thinking - they both involve coordination of theory and
evidence. However, for scientific thinking, one must first be aware of his incorrect or
incomplete knowledge. Then, coordination and knowledge seeking become intentional
in contrast to the early theory revision, where children revise their theories without
awareness (Kuhn, 2002).
First sign that children exercise their metacognitive skills, is when they start realising
that what they believe does not necessarily correlate with external reality. Once
assertions are differentiated from evidence of validity, evidence becomes a source of
support for a theory, and evidence and theory correlation can be constructed (Kuhn,
2002).
SCIENTIFIC THINKING 3
In a study conducted on preschoolers, Kuhn and Pearsall (2000) investigated if children
distinguish evidence from theory as a source of knowledge to support the claim. They
found that 4 year-olds tend to choose evidence-based responses to explain their beliefs.
Simply said, they merged the evidence and the explanation into a single representation
of what happened. Similar confusions between theory and evidence were also found at
age 6, but children of this age were correct a majority of the time (Kuhn, 2002). Kuhn
claims that substantial development is noticed later, during primary school years, when
children are faced with far more elaborate claims.
Scientific thinking is a complex process. It requires many different cognitive skills,
involved in the inquiry, experimentation, evaluation of findings, conclusions and
reasoning for the purpose of scientific understanding and conceptual change
(Zimmerman, 2005). However, Klahr (2000) noticed that only few studies include the
entire cycle through all four phases: inquiry, analysis, inference and argument.
From the nineties to the present, a microgenetic method of research was developed,
which focuses on an individual who is given the same task over multiple sessions,
allowing the observer to monitor progress and development of the strategies used to
complete the task.
A major finding from this type of research was that an individual uses a range of
alternative strategies in knowledge-acquisition tasks, and the selection of those
strategies evolves toward more developmentally advanced ones. Studies usually include
tasks that represent a prototype of the 'real' scientific research in its simplest, generic
form (Kuhn, 2001).
One such study, designed by Vaughn (2000), is a computer simulation called The
Earthquake problem, in which five dichotomous features have potential causal effect on
the earthquake risk. This study encompasses all four phases of scientific research, and is
SCIENTIFIC THINKING 4
a great example of the simulation that enhances scientific thinking (Kuhn, 2002). The
first phase, inquiry phase, which formulates goals of activity and identifies relevant
questions, is essential for shaping the further investigation. Second is the analysis phase,
in which database should be accessed, processed and represented as evidence. Thus, we
reach the third phase, inference, which involves making justified claims and inhibiting
unjustified ones. Inference progress can range in adequacy from no processing of the
evidence and no conscious awareness of theories, to the skilled coordination of theory
and evidence (Kuhn, 2002). Final phase is argument phase of scientific inquiry, and
consists of the debate and defense of claims resulting from earlier phases.
Results of Earthquake study showed that children seem to have a vague concept of what
a variable is, without which is difficult to reason explicitly or with precision about the
effect of one variable on another (Kuhn, 2002). They had a common conceptual error in
scientific reasoning, a confusion between the levels of a variable and the variable itself.
Two out of three boys falsely include as causal a variable that either co-occurs with
outcome or co-varies with outcome. One of the boys, shows an even more interesting
inferential error, so called “false exclusion”. Only the third boy used the mature mental
model of causality, which requires controlled comparison as an analysis strategy to
identify effects of individual variables, and thus draw correct conclusions.
It is essential for children to engage all four phases, employ their meta-cognition, and
strive to improve strategies and meta-skills related to all of them. Metacognitive
development consists of shifts in the frequencies with which different strategies are
chosen for application (Kuhn, 2002).The procedural meta-level, which is in charge of
selecting the strategies for specific task goals, leads to enhanced awareness of the task
goal and the extent to which it is being met by different strategies. As procedural meta-
SCIENTIFIC THINKING 5
level knowing is improved, strategy will be selected in a revised manner, getting the
individual to consistently use more powerful strategies (Kuhn, 2000).
In the next part of my essay, I will address the implications of scientific thinking and
metacognition on education. In many schools, scientific thinking is usually confined to
occasional demonstration of experiments conducted by a tutor, or children conducting
experiments 'by recipe' , with no real options for taking an active role in constructing
their own knowledge. Children are often not provided with appropriate experience for
the development of scientific thinking and learning. Continuous participation in
research activities is crucial for the development of meta-cognitive skills and strategies
needed for effective research. “By directing students’ attention to the thinking they do
in addressing scientific questions, we not only implicitly convey values and standards of
science, but also develop meta-level awareness and, ultimately, regulation of questions,
of data representations, and of inferences that do—and especially that do not—follow
from what is observed” (Kuhn, 2000). However, simply practicing these research skills
and strategies is not the optimal method of learning for most children. Rather, it is
necessary to directly strengthen metacognitive skills and knowledge about the objectives
and strategies of research. In formulating questions, accessing and interpreting
evidence, and coordinating it with theories, students are believed to develop the
intellectual skills that will enable them to construct new knowledge (Chan, Burtis, &
Bereiter, 1997).
Students should be provided many opportunities to participate in research activities,
since the processes of self-regulated experimentation helps students acquire relevant
skills and learn about the processes of science. For a successful experiment, however, is
not only important to teach students the performance of research activities, but also to
SCIENTIFIC THINKING 6
develop an understanding of when, how and why to use certain activities in responding
to the demands of the task.
One of the most important aspects for educators to bare in mind is that students'
metacognitive skills are enriched through the processes of social interaction. Students
must be encouraged to speak and discuss! Only by discussion can their mind be
awakened and stimulated. Intellectual growth can not be achieved if students go
through lessons routinely and follow the procedures step by step, without asking
"Why?” Knowledge seeking is all about questioning everything, so students must be
motivated to ask, while educators focus their attention on teaching them the forms of
question asking and answering that are central to scientific thinking. Teachers must be
involved in building every skill that is needed throughout the four phases of scientific
investigation- from inquiry through argument. Teaching students to ask critical
questions, and make difference between relevant and irrelevant inquiry, enables them
to gather purposeful information, and then use it to reach conclusions that make sense
to them. For example, students should learn that facts are indisputable. However,
opinions on those facts, their meanings and value, are all worthy of discussion. One of
the ways to provoke social interaction is by asking students to think aloud, and share
those opinions, attitudes and thoughts, but also to defend their beliefs with sound
arguments. Another great way to encourage cognitive effort is to allow students to
demonstrate what they have learned in their own creative way (e.g. write an essay,
make a video). Teachers need to inspire students to connect the new knowledge with
what they already know and can do. In order to master meta-cognition and scientific
thinking, students must learn to establish these connections themselves, rather than
having others portray them. Once students create these links, teachers should annotate,
correct if necessary, and expand them when available.
SCIENTIFIC THINKING 7
Teachers play a critical role in helping their students become thinkers, instead of just
blind followers. Critical, scientific thinking is becoming increasingly important in
todays world, where there is so many "unfiltered" information available. Uncritical
acceptance of information, ideas, perceptions and attitudes, without their verification,
can be dangerous both for the individual, and for the society as a whole.
SCIENTIFIC THINKING 8
References
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive
skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, (pp. 495-523).
Kuhn D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of
Cognition and Development, 1, (pp. 113-129).
Kuhn D.,tion and Development, 1ntal origins of scientific thinking. ent of cognitive skills
Cognitiveion and Devel 15, (pp. 309-328).
Kuhn D. (2000a). Metacognitive Development. Current Directions in Psychological
Sciences, 9, (pp. 178-191).
Kuhn, D. (2000b). Why development does (and doesn't) occur: Evidence from the
domain of inductive reasoning. In R. Siegler & J. McClelland (Eds.),gMechanisms of
cognitive development: Neural and behavioural perspectives (pp. 221-249). Mahwah NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kuhn, D. (2002). What is Scientific Thinking and How Does It Develop? In Goswami U.
(Ed.), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 371-393). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kuhn,371-393). MaEducation393). Malden,.ducation393). M Harvard University Press.
SCIENTIFIC THINKING 9
Kuhn D. Teachers College Columbia University, Education for thinking project.
Retrieved April 10th, 2014, from http://www.educationforthinking.org/
Zimmerman, C. (2005). The Development of Scientific Reasoning Skills: What
Psychologists Contribute to an Understanding of Elementary Science Learning? (Final
draft of a Report to the National Research Council Committee on Science Learning
Kindergarten through Eighth Grade). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The Development of Scientific Reasoning Skills. Developmental
Review, 20, (pp. 99–149).
Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge-building as a mediator of conflict in
conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, (pp. 1–40).