Fostering scientific reasoning in education – meta-analytic evidence from intervention studies

References

• (References marked with * indicate studies included in the meta-analysis)
   Google Scholar
• *Abdullah, S., & Shariff, A. (2008). The effects of inquiry-based computer simulation with cooperative learning on scientific thinking and conceptual understanding of gas laws. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4, 387–398.
   Google Scholar
• *Babai, R., & Levit-Dori, T. (2009). Several CASE lessons can improve students’ control of variables reasoning scheme ability. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 439–446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ben-David, A., & Zohar, A. (2009). Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1657–1682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 97–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Chen, C.-H., & She, H.-C. (2012). The impact of recurrent on-line synchronous scientific argumentation on students’ argumentation and conceptual change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 197–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Chen, C.-T., & She, H.-C. (2015). The effectiveness of scientific inquiry with/without integration of scientific reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098–1120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Conference of the Ministers of Education [KMK]. (2005). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10) [Resolution of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany Education Standards for the subject biology (Grade 10)]. München, Germany: Luchterhand.
   Google Scholar
• Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H.-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3, 101–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2014). Fostering scientific reasoning: A meta-analysis on intervention studies. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, … L. D'Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014, (Vol. I, pp. 246–253). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission. (2011). FTC settlement prohibits marketer from claiming that Nivea skin cream can help consumers slim down. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/06/ftc-settlement-prohibits-marketer-claiming-nivea-skin-cream-can
   Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission. (2015). FTC charges company, owner with deceptively marketing mosquito repellent wristbands. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/02/ftc-charges-company-owner-deceptively-marketing-mosquito
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., … Eberle, J. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 2(3), 28–45.
   Google Scholar
• Giere, R. N. (1979). Understanding scientific reasoning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• *Gultepe, N., & Kilic, Z. (2015). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of scientific process skills in the context of teaching chemistry. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10, 111–132.
   Google Scholar
• *Gutwill, J. P., & Allen, S. (2012). Deepening students’ scientific inquiry skills during a science museum field trip. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 130–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern, D. F., Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., Butler, H., Forsyth, C., & Cai, Z. (2012). Operation ARA: A computerized learning game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 93–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoaglin, D.C., Iglewicz, B., & Tukey, J. W. (1986). Performance of some resistant rules for outlier labeling, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 991–999.
   Google Scholar
• *Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2015). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment. Science Education, 99, 282–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klahr, D., Zimmerman, C., & Jirout, J. (2011). Educational interventions to advance children’s scientific thinking. Science, 333(6045), 971–975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skill of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2002). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 371–393). Oxford. UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810–824.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Kuhn, D., & Dean, D., Jr. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables. Psychological Science, 16, 866–870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23, 435–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 113–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• *Lazonder, A. W., & Egberink, A. (2014). Children’s acquisition and use of the control-of-variables strategy: Effects of explicit and implicit instructional guidance. Instructional Science, 42, 291–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721–734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Liao, Y.-W., & She, H. C. (2009). Enhancing eight-grade students’ scientific conceptual change and scientific reasoning through a web-based learning program. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 228–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linn, M. C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., & Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347(6222). doi:10.1126/science.1261757
   Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• *Liu, S. (2015). Virtual experiments or worked examples? How to learn the control of variable strategy. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20, 27–41.
   Google Scholar
• *Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P., Freer, B. D., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Calderhead, W. J. (2014). Using valid and invalid experimental designs to teach the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 18–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7, 79–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157–159.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Peters, E. E. (2012). Developing content knowledge in students through explicit teaching of the nature of science: Influences of goal setting and self-monitoring. Science & Education, 21, 881–898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self-regulatory efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 110, 382–396.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2007). The differential learning achievements of constructivist technology-intensive learning environments as compared with traditional ones: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, J. A. (1988). Controlling variables: A meta-analysis of training studies. Review of Educational Research, 58, 405–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *She, H.-C., & Lee, C.-Q. (2008). SCCR digital learning system for scientific conceptual change and scientific reasoning. Computers & Education, 51, 724–742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A., & Lea, G. (1974). Problem solving and rule induction: A unified view. In L. W. Gregg (Ed.), Knowledge and cognition (pp. 105–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• *Sprod, T. (1998). “I can change your opinion on that”: Social constructivist whole class discussions and their effect on scientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 28, 463–480.
   Google Scholar
• Stark, R., Puhl, T., & Krause, U.-M. (2009). Improving scientific argumentation skills by a problem-based learning environment: Effects of an elaboration tool and relevance of student characteristics. Evaluation & Research in Education, 22, 51–68.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, D. B. (2010). Meta-analysis macros for SAS, SPSS, and Stata. Retrieved from http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html
   Google Scholar
• *Wollenschläger, M., Möller, J., & Harms, U. (2011). Effekte kompetenzieller Rückmeldung beim wissenschaftlichen Denken [Effects of competential feedback on performance in scientific reasoning]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25, 197–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Yeh, K.-H., & She, H.-C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students’ argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education, 55, 586–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Zion, M., Michalsky, T., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2005). The effects of metacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 957–983.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar