A Hypothetical Learning Progression for Quantifying Phenomena in Science
- 43 Downloads
In this article, we report on a three-pronged effort to create a hypothetical learning progression for quantification in science. First, we drew from history and philosophy of science to define the quantification competency and develop hypothetical levels of the learning progression. More specifically, the quantification competency refers to the ability to analyze phenomena through (a) abstracting relevant measurable variables from phenomena and observations, (b) investigating the mathematical relationships among the variables, and (c) conceptualizing scientific ideas that explain the mathematical relationships. The quantification learning progression contains four levels of increasing sophistication: level 1, holistic observation; level 2, attributes; level 3, measurable variables; and level 4, relational complexity. Second, we analyzed the practices in the Next Generation Science Standards for current, largely tacit, assumptions about how quantification develops (or ought to develop) through K-12 education. While several pieces of evidence support the learning progression, we found that quantification was described inconsistently across practices. Third, we used empirical student data from a field test of items in physical and life sciences to illustrate qualitative differences in student thinking that align with levels in the hypothetical learning progression for quantification. By generating a hypothetical learning progression for quantification, we lay the groundwork for future standards development efforts to include this key practice and provide guidance for curriculum developers and instructors in helping students develop robust scientific understanding.
This work was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences under grant R305A160219.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Adamson, S. L., Banks, D., Burtch, M., Cox III, F., Judson, E., Turley, J. B., . . . Lawson, A. E. (2003). Reformed undergraduate instruction and its subsequent impact on secondary school teaching practice and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 939–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Altig, J. (2014). The historical gas laws. Retrieved from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20171025064301/http://infohost.nmt.edu:80/~jaltig/HistoricalGasLaws.pdf.
- American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
- Anderson, C. W. (2008). Conceptual and empirical validation of learning progressions. Response to “Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment.”. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
- Black, P., Wilson, M., & Yao, S.-Y. (2011). Road maps for learning: a guide to the navigation of learning progressions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 9, 71–123.Google Scholar
- Brahmia, S., Boudreaux, A., & Kanim, S. E. (2016). Obstacles to mathematization in introductory physics. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01235.
- Bynum, W. (2013). A little history of science. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Corcoran, T. B., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: an evidence-based approach to reform (Research Report No. RR-63). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
- Damerow, P., Freudenthal, G., McLaughlin, P., & Renn, J. (1991). Exploring the limits of preclassical mechanics: a study of conceptual development in early modern science: free fall and compounded motion in the work of Descartes, Galileo, and Beeckman. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Dunbar, K. (2001). The analogical paradox: why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings, yet so difficult in the psychological laboratory. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 313–334). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Dunbar, K., & Fugelsang, J. (2005). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 705–725). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: the contribution of research (pp. 187–206). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data (revised ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: supporting instruction and formative assessment. Retrieved from the Center on Standards & Assessment Implementaiton website: https://www.csai-online.org/sites/default/files/Learning_Progressions_Supporting_2008.pdf.
- Holton, G., & Brush, S. G. (2006). Physics, the human adventure: from Copernicus to Einstein and beyond. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
- Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012a). Development of assessments for a learning progression on carbon cycling in social-ecological systems. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: current challenges and future directions (pp. 151–182). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jin, H., Johnson, M. E., & Yestness, R. N. (2015a). A learning progression approach to incorporate climate sustainability into teacher education. In S. Stratton, R. Hagevik, A. Feldman, & M. Bloom (Eds.), Educating science teachers for sustainability (pp. 121–142). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jin, H., van Rijn, P., Moore, J. C., Bauer, M. I., Pressler, Y., & Yestness, N. (2019b). A validation framework for science learning progression research. International Journal of Science Education.Google Scholar
- Kline, M. (1964). Mathematics in Western culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kline, M. (1980). Mathematics: the loss of certainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
- Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: the learning sciences (pp. 371–387). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lesh, R., Lamon, S. J., Gong, B., & Post, T. R. (1992). Using learning progress maps to improve instructional decision making. In R. Lesh & S. Lamon (Eds.), Assessment of authentic performance in school mathematics (pp. 343–365). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
- McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: the claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.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
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Paty, M. (2003). The idea of quantity at the origin of the legitimacy of mathematization in physics. In C. Gould (Ed.), Constructivism and practice: towards a social and historical epistemology (pp. 109–135). Baltimore, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Tuminaro, J., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020101
- Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 267–297). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Wylie, E. C., Bauer, M. I., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Validating and using learning progressions to support mathematics formative assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar