The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity
Open accessAbstract
In order to compete in a global economy, students are going to need resources and curricula focusing on critical thinking and reasoning in science. Despite awareness for the need for complex reasoning, American students perform poorly relative to peers on international standardized tests measuring complex thinking in science. Research focusing on learning progressions is one effort to provide more coherent science curricular sequences and assessments that can be focused on complex thinking about focal science topics. This article describes an empirically driven, five‐step process to develop a 3‐year learning progression focusing on complex thinking about biodiversity. Our efforts resulted in empirical results and work products including: (1) a revised definition of learning progressions, (2) empirically driven, 3‐year progressions for complex thinking about biodiversity, (3) an application of statistical approaches for the analysis of learning progression products, (4) Hierarchical Linear Modeling results demonstrating significant student achievement on complex thinking about biodiversity, and (5) Growth Model results demonstrating strengths and weaknesses of the first version of our curricular units. The empirical studies present information to inform both curriculum and assessment development. For curriculum development, the role of learning progressions as templates for the development of organized sequences of curricular units focused on complex science is discussed. For assessment development, learning progression‐guided assessments provide a greater range and amount of information that can more reliably discriminate between students of differing abilities than a contrasting standardized assessment measure that was also focused on biodiversity content. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 610–631, 2009
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Bruner, J. (1996) · doi:10.4159/9780674251083 · Cited by 6,231
Cited by
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20402 · Cited by 481
Learning progressions and teaching sequences: a review and analysis
Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057267.2011.604476 · Cited by 375
Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20449 · Cited by 351
Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression
Wilson, M. (2009) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20318 · Cited by 329
Towards a learning progression of energy
Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21061 · Cited by 301
Metadata
- Authors
- Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-07-07
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 610-631
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2002109784
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 76.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.