References
- Aitkin, M., Anderson, D., & Hinde, J. (1981). Statistical modelling of data on teaching styles. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series a (General), 144(4), 419. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2981826
- Bohrmann, M. (2017). Zur Förderung des Verständnisses der Variablenkontrolle im naturwissenschaftlichen Sachunterricht [Facilitating the understanding of controlling variables in science eduaction]. Logos Verlag.
- Brandenburger, M., & Mikelskis-Seifert, S. (2019). Facetten experimenteller Kompetenz in den Naturwissenschaften [Facets of experimental competence in science]. In C. Maurer (Hrsg.), Naturwissenschaftliche Bildung als Grundlage für berufliche und gesellschaftliche Teilhabe. Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik, Jahrestagung in Kiel 2018. (S. 77). Universität Regensburg. https://gdcp-ev.de/wpcontent/tb2019/TB2019_77_Brandenburger.pdf
- Brandenburger, M., Mikelskis-Seifert, S., Schwichow, M., & Wilbers, J. (2020). Variablenkontrollstrategien in der Grundschule [Control of variables strategy (CVS) in elementary school]. In S. Habig (Hrsg.), Naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen in der Gesellschaft von morgen. Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik, Jahrestagung in Wien 2019. (S. 130). Universität Duisburg-Essen. https://gdcp-ev.de/?p=3714
- Brandenburger, M., Salim, C. A., Schwichow, M., & Wilbers, J. (2021). Modellierung der Struktur der Variablenkontrollstrategie und Abbildung von Veränderungen in der Grundschule [Modelling the structure of the control of variables strategy (CVS) and mapping changes in CVS through elementary school]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften.
- Bullock, M., Sodian, B., & Koerber, S. (2009). Doing experiments and understanding science: Development of scientific reasoning from childhood to adulthood. In W. Schneider & M. Bullock (Eds.), Human development from early childhood to early adulthood. Findings from the Munich longitudinal study (pp. 173–197). Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Bullock, M., & Ziegler, A. (1999). Scientific reasoning: Developmental and individual differences. In F. E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Individual development from 3 to 12: Findings from the Munich longitudinal study (pp. 38–54). Cambridge University Press.
- Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00081
- Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Cressie, N., & Read, T. R. C. (1984). Multinomial goodness-of-fit tests. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 46(3), 440–464. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1984.tb01318.x
- Croker, S., & Buchanan, H. (2011). Scientific reasoning in a real-world context: The effect of prior belief and outcome on children’s hypothesis-testing strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(3), 409–424. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1348/026151010X496906
- Davier, M. (1997a). WINMIRA – Program description and recent enhancements. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 2(2), 25–28.
- Davier, M. (1997b). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit statistics for sparse categorical data: Results of a monte carlo study. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 2(2), 29–48.
- Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384–397. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20194
- Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 481–490. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110501
- Edelsbrunner, P. A., Schalk, L., Schumacher, R., & Stern, E. (2018). Variable control and conceptual change: A large-scale quantitative study in elementary school. Learning and Individual Differences, 66, 38–53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.003
- Frey, A., Hartig, J., & Rupp, A. A. (2009). An NCME instructional module on booklet designs in large-scale assessments of student achievement: Theory and practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 39–53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00154.x
- Gartmeier, M., Bauer, J., Gruber, H., & Heid, H. (2008). Negative knowledge: Understanding professional learning and expertise. Vocations and Learning, 1(2), 87–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-008-9006-1
- Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x
- Koerber, S., & Osterhaus, C. (2019). Individual differences in early scientific thinking: Assessment, cognitive influences, and their relevance for science learning. Journal of Cognition and Development, 20(4), 510–533. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2019.1620232
- Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 259–286). Taylor and Francis.
- Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
- Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., Calderhead, W. J., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Freer, B. D. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017972
- Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport. (2016). Bildungsplan der Grundschule. Sachunterricht. [Elementary curriculum. Science]. Retrieved February 17, 2021, from http://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/site/bildungsplan/get/documents/lsbw/export-pdf/depot-pdf/ALLG/BP2016BW_ALLG_GS_SU.pdf
- National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies.
- Nehring, A., Stiller, J., Nowak, K. H., Upmeier zu Belzen, A., & Tiemann, R. (2016). Naturwissenschaftliche Denk- und Arbeitsweisen im Chemieunterricht – eine modellbasierte Videostudie zu Lerngelegenheiten für den Kompetenzbereich der Erkenntnisgewinnung. [Inquiry methods and scientific reasoning in chemistry education – A model-based video study on learning opportunities in the field of scientific inquiry]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 22(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-016-0043-2
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
- Pérez, A., Dennis, R. J., Gil, J. F. A., Rondón, M. A., & López, A. (2002). Use of the mean, hot deck and multiple imputation techniques to predict outcome in intensive care unit patients in Colombia. Statistics in Medicine, 21(24), 3885–3896. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1391
- Peteranderl, S., & Edelsbrunner, P. A. (2020). The predictive value of the understanding of inconclusiveness and confounding for later mastery of the control-of-variables strategy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 531565. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.531565
- Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion [Textbook test theory and test construction]. Huber.
- Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics Applied probability and statistics. Wiley. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696
- Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Olson, D. R., & Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children’s understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development, 64(6), 1617–1636. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb04203.x
- Schalk, L., Edelsbrunner, P. A., Deiglmayr, A., Schumacher, R., & Stern, E. (2019). Improved application of the control-of-variables strategy as a collateral benefit of inquiry-based physics education in elementary school. Learning and Instruction, 59, 34–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.09.006
- Schulz, L. E., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Causal learning across domains. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 162–176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.162
- Schwichow, M., Christoph, S., Boone, W. J., & Härtig, H. (2016). The impact of sub-skills and item content on students’ skills with regard to the control-of-variables-strategy. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 216–237. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1137651
- Schwichow, M., Croker, S., Zimmerman, C., Höffler, T., & Härtig, H. (2016). Teaching the control-of-variables strategy: A meta analysis. Developmental Review, 39, 37–63. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.12.001
- Schwichow, M., Osterhaus, C., & Edelsbrunner, P. A. (2020). The relation between the control-of-variables strategy and content knowledge in physics in secondary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 63, 101923. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101923
- Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., Croker, S., & Härtig, H. (2016). What students learn from hands-on activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 980–1002. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21320
- Siler, S. A., & Klahr, D. (2012). Detecting, classifying and remediating: Children’s explicit and implicit misconceptions about experimental design. In R. W. Proctor & E. J. Capaldi (Eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 137–180). Oxford University Press.
- Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Chapman & Hall/CRC interdisciplinary statistics series. Chapman & Hall/CRC. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=111068
- Smith, J. P., Disessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
- Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science learning visible: The influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 72(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504346
- Strand-Cary, M., & Klahr, D. (2008). Developing elementary science skills: Instructional effectiveness and path independence. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 488–511. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.005
- Thillmann, H., Gößling, J., Marschner, J., Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2013). Metacognitive knowledge about and metacognitive regulation of strategy use in self-regulated scientific discovery learning: New methods of assessment in computer-based learning environments. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 575–588). Springer.
- Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51(11), 1–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1129583
- van Vo, D., & Csapó, B. (2021). Development of scientific reasoning test measuring control of variables strategy in physics for high school students: Evidence of validity and latent predictors of item difficulty. International Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1957515
- Vosniadou, S. (2019). The development of students’ understanding of science. Frontiers in Education, 4, 2368. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00032
- Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford studies in philosophy of science. Oxford University Press.
- Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001
- Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2008b). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9019-4
- Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008a). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 337–353. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.001