Theoretical model and quantitative assessment of scientific thinking and reasoning
Lei Bao, Kathleen Koenig, Yang Xiao, Joseph C. Fritchman, Shaona Zhou, Cheng Chen
The Ohio State University University of Cincinnati South China Normal University Jimei University
阅读操作
确认中在文库中上传 PDF 后可生成中文音频讲解。
摘要与影响
Abilities in scientific thinking and reasoning have been emphasized as core areas of initiatives, such as the Next Generation Science Standards or the College Board Standards for College Success in Science, which focus on the skills the future will demand of today's students. Although there is rich literature on studies of how these abilities develop in students across grade levels, the research community has not reached consensus on their definition, modeling, or assessment. To advance research in this important area, a coherent theoretical model of scientific reasoning is needed for practically guiding instruction and assessment. For decades, the only instrument available for large-scale application was the Lawson's Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning, but the instrument has demonstrated validity weaknesses and ceiling limitations, and its design is missing an explicit modeling framework for justifying the included skills. As a result, there is an urgent need for the development of a comprehensive modeling framework of scientific reasoning and a valid scientific reasoning assessment that targets the wide-ranging skills required for 21st century learners. This paper reports on the development of a modeling framework of scientific reasoning along with a new assessment instrument, adding to the research literature in a much needed area. The modeling framework integrates research in scientific and causal reasoning and operationally defines the skills and subskills that underlie the reasoning for knowledge development through scientific inquiry. Subsequently, this framework is used to guide the development of an assessment instrument on scientific reasoning. The validity and reliability of the instrument, which have been established based on large-scale testing, will also be discussed.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
可就本文提问;依据不足时会说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
社会科学Science Education and Pedagogy
Education and Critical Thinking Development · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
参考文献 65
此处列出前 3 条
引用本文 31
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条