daenna kuhn - scientific thinking

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


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).


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


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-


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


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.


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.


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.


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).

http://www.educationforthinking.org/