What Do Young Science Students Need to Learn About Variables?

Abstract

Have the Next Generation Science Standards fulfilled a goal of specifying the objectives of precollege science education in clear and exact enough terms to make them readily implementable? Using students’ understanding of the concept of a variable as a case in point, the author suggests that the standards, despite their seeming precision and clarity, leave critical questions not fully answered regarding what K–12 students need to master to be judged knowledgeable regarding scientific practices. This is especially the case given that scientific practices entail not only procedural knowledge but also epistemic understanding, i.e., the purposes and ends toward which practices are conducted. If the teacher does not fully appreciate the epistemic component and lacks deep understanding of procedures, engaging students in related activities is less likely to seem worthwhile to the teacher and in turn to students, leaving teachers tempted to focus attention on content‐defined learning, where goals are clearer.

Can Engaging in Science Practices Promote Deep Understanding of Them?

“…The difference between groups is statistically significant, p = .041 for construction and p = .038 for justification, Fisher's exact test. items could be objectively scored based on the relation of the cases chosen for comparison with respect to the two key criteria for mastery of control of variables (Kuhn, 2016a): Was the focal variable under investigation varied and were other variables controlled (held constant)?…”

Monitoring and depth of strategy use in computer‐based learning environments for science and history

“…First, it may be that the most effective ‘deep’ learning strategies fundamentally differ across academic disciplines. For example, the control of variables strategy that is an extremely necessary but not sufficient strategy in science (Kuhn, ; Zohar & Barzilai, ) plays little role in history, whereas strategies such as historical perspective taking and establishing chronology are similarly unique but powerful discipline‐specific tools (Carretero & Lee, ; Poitras & Lajoie, ).…”

Semiotic procedural knowledge model on solution of problems and problem-solving analysis

“…This is a knowledge-centered assessment since to-be (the smallest significant parts of the answer key) and as-is (the smallest significant parts of the data) are subjected to assessment through probability processes in terms of their smallest significant parts through this method. Since the critical questions regarding what they need in procedural knowledge are required to be evaluated so that students can be informed about scientific practices (Kuhn, 2016), the first measurement tool created from questions related to the applications of students' scientific knowledge in technology and data were collected after the other two measurement tools were applied. The data of the research were collected from work and kinetic energy issues.…”