# Presentation: 082720

## Archived Information How can laboratory research in cognitive and developmental psychology contribute to science education(and vice versa)?

**David Klahr**
**Department of Psychology**
**Carnegie Mellon University**

## Psychological investigations of scientific thinking in children
Paradigm
Findings
Tensions between 
basic versus applied 
engineering vs science
An example from my lab
Establishing a unique paradigm for Science Education

**Paradigm**
**Findings**
**Tensions between **
**basic versus applied **
**engineering vs science**
**An example from my lab**
**Establishing a unique paradigm for Science Education**

**Outline**

## Types of Psychological Research on Scientific Thinking

**Domain**
**Specific**
**Knowledge**
**Domain**
**General**
**Knowledge**

**Hypothesis**
**Generation**

**Experiment**
**Design**

**Evidence**
**Evaluation**

**Phase of Scientific Discovery**

**Types of Psychological Research ****on ****Scientific Thinking**

**Type of Knowledge**

**Notes:**
1.  The theoretical justification for this taxonomy can be found in Chapter 1 of Klahr, D. (2000).  Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery process.  Cambridge: MIT Press. A Bradford Book.

## Domain-Specific Hypothesis Generation

**Domain**
**Specific**
**Domain**
**General**

**Hypothesis**
**Generation**

**Experiment**
**Design**

**Evidence**
**Evaluation**

**Domain-Specific Hypothesis Generation**

**Theories of Motion**
**Heat & Temperature**

**What do children know about different physical domains?**

**Notes:**

1. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Book/MIT Press

## Domain-General Evidence Evaluation:

**Domain**
**Specific**
**Domain**
**General**

**Hypothesis**
**Generation**

**Experiment**
**Design**

**Evidence**
**Evaluation**

**Domain-General Evidence Evaluation:**

**What do children know about the relation between:**
**covariation & causality?**
**knowing & guessing?**

**Notes:**
1. Koslowski, B.  (1996).  Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning.  Cambridge: MIT Press. A Bradford Book.
2. Amsel, E. & Brock, S. (1996)  The development of evidence evaluation skills. Cognitive Development, 11, 523-550. 
3. Fay, A. & Klahr, D. (1996) Knowing about guessing and guessing about knowing: Preschoolers' understanding of indeterminacy . Child Development, 67, 689-716. 

## What has research on children’s scientific thinking revealed? 

**2. Deeply entrenched misconceptions:**

**What has research on children’s scientific thinking revealed?**** **

**  ****Momentum and Force**
**  ****Heat  & Temperature**
**  ****Mass & Density**
**  ****Solar system**
**  ****Animacy (What’s alive?)**
**  ****Theory of Mind (how other’s think)**

**Notes:**
1. Siegler, R.S.  (1976).  Three aspects of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 481-520.
2. Siegler, R. S. (1996).  Emerging Minds: The Process of Change in Children’s Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

## What has research on children’s scientific thinking revealed?

**5. Knowledge is organized around prior conceptions (or mis-conceptions).**

**4. Sets of partially correct strategies: **
**	****simple arithmetic**
**	****evaluating evidence**
**	****naïve physics**

**What has research on children’s scientific thinking revealed?**

## What has research on children’s scientific thinking revealed?

**What has research on children’s scientific thinking revealed?**

**8. Analogy is a powerful heuristic for solving problems and learning new material.**

**7. Expertise is domain-limited.**

## Psychologist’s reaction to studies of isolated cell or cells:

**Teacher’s ****response****:**

**Great ****Stuff****!**

**Who ****cares****?**

## But real teachers teaching real science can’t isolate the cells!

**Length?**
**Initial force?**
**Mass?**

**Counting**
**Timing**
**Measuring**

**Asking good**
**questions**

**Vary one thing**
**Keep others the same**

**Recording data**
**Making Tables**
**Averages**

**Domain**
**Specific**
**Domain**
**General**

**Hypothesis**
**Generation**

**Experiment**
**Design**

**Evidence**
**Evaluation**

**Select length, mass, force, etc.**

**But real teachers teaching real science can’t isolate the cells!**

## Conflicting goals and constraints:

**	**** **

_**Educators**_** need to weave many aspects of Science into classroom lessons.  **

**Conflicting goals and constraints:**

## We have a lot of knowledge about cognition.

**How to use it for improving instruction in science?**

## Psychological investigations of scientific thinking in children
Paradigm
Findings
Tensions between 
basic versus applied 
engineering vs science
An example from my lab
Establishing a unique paradigm for Science Education

**Paradigm**
**Findings**
**Tensions between **
**basic versus applied **
**engineering vs science**
**An example from my lab**
**Establishing a unique paradigm for Science Education**

**Outline**

## Stokes, Donald (1997) Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. 

**Considerations of Use?**

**No**

**Yes**

**Quest for**
**Fundamental**
**Understanding?**

**Yes**

**No**

**Pure, basic**
**research (Bohr)**

**Use-inspired,**
**basic research**
**(Pasteur)**

**Pure applied**
**research**
**(Edison)**

**Stokes, Donald (1997) **_**Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation.**_** **

**Notes:**
 Pasteur’s,quadrant:  research driven by the desire to solve practical  problems, for Pasteur preventing the spoilage of  vinegar, beer, wine and milk, and conquering  diseases in silkworms, sheep, chickens, cattle and  humans.

## “Engineering” vs “Science” in science education  

**“****Engineering” vs**** ****“Science” in science education****  **

**Science of Educational Research****:**** **
**Goal: new knowledge about learning & its causes.**
**Mantra:  “What is the mechanism?”**
**Procedures: **
**systematic, theoretically motivated;**
**“****clean” treatments **
**controlled experiments, randomization; **
**pre tests & post tests; etc. **
**Engineering of Educational Outcomes:**** **
**Goal: new effects, improved learning.**
**Mantra: “Make it work!”**
**Procedures: **
**Application of new, empirically verified, techniques**
**some theory, some hunch, **
**multiple changes, complex, uncontrolled interactions, etc. **

**Bohr**

**Edison**

## From basic to applied research in instruction

**Theoretical issues**

**Instructional topics**

**Technology**

**From basic to applied research in instruction**

## Psychological investigations of scientific thinking in children
Paradigm
Findings
Tensions between 
basic versus applied 
engineering vs science
An example from my lab
Establishing a unique paradigm for Science Education

**Paradigm**
**Findings**
**Tensions between **
**basic versus applied **
**engineering vs science**
**An example from my lab**
**Establishing a unique paradigm for Science Education**

**Outline**

## Recent & Current Collaborators:	Zhe Chen	Milena Nigam	Brad Morris	Amy Masnick	Lara Triona	Junlei Li

## Research Questions:

_**Psychological**_**:  can elementary school kids understand the logic and procedures underlying the control of variables strategy  (CVS)?**
_**Educational**_**: can children be taught how to design unconfounded experiments?**
_**Instructional**_**: how does direct instruction compare with discovery learning in this domain?**

## Analogical Transfer

**Design & Recognize “Good” Experiments**

**Discovery Learning**

**Direct Instruction**

**Control of Variables Strategy**

**Notes:**
1. Chen, Z. & Klahr, D., (1999). All other things being equal: Children's acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development,70 (5), 1098 - 1120.

## THE SPRINGS DOMAIN

** ****Select two springs**
** ****Select two weights  **

**Hang springs on rack hooks **
**Hang weights on springs.**
**Compare amount of  stretching.**

**EXECUTION**

**THE SPRINGS DOMAIN**

**Question: how do different attributes of springs determine how far a spring will stretch?**

## SPRINGS:  an unconfounded test for length

**	****        ****A                B**
**Length:****   ****short****	****long**
**Width:****     ****wide****	****wide**
**Wire:****	****     thin****	****	****thin**
**Weight:****   light****	****light**

**    ****A           B**

**Notes:**
This is one of our Domains.  Children have to set up an experiment that determines how different factors affect spring elongation.

They have a set of eight springs and four weights to choose from.
This is a good (unconfounded) experiment to see if the LENGTH of a spring matters in how far it stretches.

We call the thing being tested here the “FOCAL” variable.  
Since the only thing that is different here is the focal variable, and the others are the same, this is a good experiment.

## RAMPS: A multiply confounded test

**Surface:****	****smooth**
**Run:**** ****	****	****short**
**Steepness:**** ****	****high**
**Ball:**** ****	****	****golf**

**Surface:**** ****	****rough**
**Run:**** ****	****	****long**
**Steepness:**** ****	****low**
**Ball:**** ****	****	****rubber**

**Notes:**
This is the Ramps domain.  Children have to construct, a set of contrasting ramps.  They can vary each of the dimensions shown here.  Then they can choose which of two kinds of balls to roll down the ramp.

This is a TERRIBLE experiment.  Everything varies.  If you wanted to know if the surface made a difference, you couldn’t tell for sure from this experiment.

## Direct, didactic:  Provide both explicit instructions and probe questions.

**THREE TYPES OF TRAINING**

_***Discovery***_**: ****Provide only hands-on experience.  (No instruction, no questions)**

_***Socratic***_**: ****Provide only probe questions on each trial.**

## Direct Instruction

**Present good and bad examples**
**Set up apparatus**
**Run experiment**
**Observe outcome**
**Ask: good or bad?  Why?**
**Can you tell for sure?**
**Why? What did you learn?**
**Explain why good or bad.**

## Phases  

**0%**

**10%**

**20%**

**30%**

**40%**

**50%**

**60%**

**70%**

**Phases  **

**Day 1                Day 2**

## Results

**0%**

**10%**

**20%**

**30%**

**40%**

**50%**

**60%**

**70%**

**Discovery**** children**** ****made no significant  gains**

**"Socratic" ****children had a slight improvement by the end of the transfer phases.**** **

**Direct, Didactic ****children immediately increased their use of CVS**

**Results**

## Remote Transfer:

**Remote Transfer:**
**7 months later, **
**15 of these types of problems:**

## 0

**0**

**25**

**50**

**75**

**100**

**3rd Grade**

**4th Grade**

**% OF CHILDREN GETTING 13 of 15 CORRECT ON REMOTE (7 month delay) POSTTEST**

## From Basic to Applied

**Theoretical issues**

**Instructional topics**

**Lab studies**

**From Basic to Applied**

## What to hold and what to fold?

**Pedagogy:**
**Same goal – teach CVS  **
**Same type of instruction: direct instruction**
**Assessment:**
**Same as laboratory  **
**Plus, some new assessments in classroom****  **
**Context (many differences):**
**Scheduling**
**Student/teacher ratio**
**Group work**
**Record keeping**
**Error and multiple trials**

## Participants in Classroom Study

**77 4th graders from 4 classrooms in two different schools**
**2 different science teachers**
**Neither school had participated in earlier “lab”  study**

## Results of classroom Study

**        ****Pretest**

**        ****Post Test**

**Results of classroom Study**

**Percent of unconfounded designs**

## Classroom results (continued)

**Posttest:**
**91% classified as Expert  **

**Pretest: **
**5% classified as Expert**

**Classroom results (continued)**

## Mutually informative approaches1

**Lab studies can be extrapolated to classroom practice**

**Notes:**

1. Carver, S. M. and Klahr D. (Eds.) (2001) Cognition and Instruction: 25 years of progress. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

## What about the red arrows??

**Theoretical issues**

**Instructional topics**

**Technology**

**What about the red arrows??**

## New Issues raised by classroom study

**Authenticity and far transfer?**
**Children’s understanding of error and variability?**
***(additional slides  for each of these studies, if time for elaboration)***** **

**New Issues raised by classroom study**

**Subsequently investigated in further laboratory studies**

## Psychological investigations of scientific thinking in children
Paradigm
Findings
Tensions between 
basic versus applied 
engineering vs science
An example from my lab

Establishing a unique paradigm for Science Education

**Paradigm**
**Findings**
**Tensions between **
**basic versus applied **
**engineering vs science**
**An example from my lab**
**Establishing a unique paradigm for Science Education**

**Outline**

## Suggestions for a science of science education

**Beware “approaches”**
**Go forth and multiply**
**Honor thy failures**
**Research as problem solving**

## Approach Avoidance

**Not useful: Educational practice derived from“approaches”**
**Piaget, Vygotsky, Constructivist, Situated, Information Processing, Hands on vs hands-off, etc.**
**Specifying a “Newtonian Approach” doesn’t get you to Mars.**
**A prescription that says “use germ theory” doesn’t help a pharmacist much. **
**Definitions matter!**
**“****Discovery”, “Direct”, “Socratic”: labels are just packaging.**
**Key to science is *****Operational definition*****: what was done?**
**Details matter!**
**Space shuttle launches:**
**O-rings: How cold is too cold?**
**Foam chunks: How big too big?**
**Teacher training:**
**What knowledge;  which skills; what kind of experience?**

## Needed: large number of specific, but robust, findings

**“****Once we have dozens or hundreds of randomized or carefully matched experiments going on each year on all aspects of educational practice, we will begin to make steady, irreversible progress” ****(Robert Slavin, 2002)**
**“****Progress”?         ****	****	****For sure.**
**“****Irreversible”?     ****	****	****Perhaps.**
**“****Hundreds of studies”?  ****	****At the least.**

## What works, AND what doesn’t work, AND what doesn’t seem to matter one way or the other

**Important to focus on success**
**Equally important to focus on “failure”**
**Scientific discovery is a type of problem solving ****(Klahr, 2000)**
**Requires “search” **
**For hypotheses**
**For experiments**
**For evaluation of experimental outcomes**
**As in any problem solving: failures are *****informative*****, not useless!**

## No magic bullet

**No magic bullet**

**Medical model (often touted)**
**But: no universal “wellness pill” or “generic health procedure”**
**Medical research is highly specific and detailed, and extrapolations to practice based on many replicated studies.**
**In Education:**
**Research to practice link must be specific and detailed and theory-based and engineered**
**Practice to research link must be nurtured (as in Medicine)**

## Thank you

- <date/time>

**Thank you**