Does Attainment of Piaget's Formal Operational Level of Cognitive Development Predict Student Understanding of Scientific Models?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2013 Does Attainment of Piaget's Formal Operational Level of Cognitive Development Predict Student Understanding of Scientific Models? Richard Dennis Lahti The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Lahti, Richard Dennis, "Does Attainment of Piaget's Formal Operational Level of Cognitive Development Predict Student Understanding of Scientific Models?" (2013). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 1379. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1379 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOES ATTAINMENT OF PIAGET’S FORMAL OPERATIONAL LEVEL OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT PREDICT STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC MODELS? By RICHARD DENNIS LAHTI II M.S. Science Education, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, August 10, 2001 B.S. Chemistry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, August 19, 1994 Dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Education in Curriculum and Instruction The University of Montana Missoula, MT December, 2012 Approved by: Sandy Ross, Associate Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School Darrell Stolle, Co-Chair Department of Curriculum and Instruction Mark Cracolice, Co-Chair Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry David Erickson Department of Curriculum and Instruction Lisa Blank Department of Curriculum and Instruction Georgia Cobbs Department of Curriculum and Instruction © COPYRIGHT by Richard Dennis Lahti II 2012 All Rights Reserved ii Lahti, Richard, Ed.D., Fall 2012, Curriculum and Instruction DOES ATTAINMENT OF PIAGET'S FORMAL OPERATION LEVEL OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT PREDICT STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTIFIC MODELS? Co-Chairperson: Darrell Stolle Co-Chairperson: Mark Cracolice Knowledge of scientific models and their uses is a concept that has become a key benchmark in many of the science standards of the past 30 years, including the proposed Next Generation Science Standards. Knowledge of models is linked to other important nature of science concepts such as theory change which are also rising in prominence in newer standards. Effective methods of instruction will need to be developed to enable students to achieve these standards. The literature reveals an inconsistent history of success with modeling education. These same studies point to a possible cognitive development component which might explain why some students succeeded and others failed. An environmental science course, rich in modeling experiences, was used to test both the extent to which knowledge of models and modeling could be improved over the course of one semester, and more importantly, to identify if cognitive ability was related to this improvement. In addition, nature of science knowledge, particularly related to theories and theory change, was also examined. Pretest and posttest results on modeling (SUMS) and nature of science (SUSSI), as well as data from the modeling activities themselves, was collected. Cognitive ability was measured (CTSR) as a covariate. Students’ gain in six of seven categories of modeling knowledge was at least medium (Cohen’s d >.5) and moderately correlated to CTSR for two of seven categories. Nature of science gains were smaller, although more strongly correlated with CTSR. Student success at creating a model was related to CTSR, significantly in three of five sub-categories. These results suggest that explicit, reflective experience with models can increase student knowledge of models and modeling (although higher cognitive ability students may have more success), but successfully creating models may depend more heavily on cognitive ability. This finding in particular has implications in the grade placement of modeling standards and curriculum chosen to help these students, particularly those with low cognitive ability, to meet the standards. iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Katharine and my children Erika and Sonja. May the destination justify the journey, and may the lost time together be paid back with interest after graduation. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a number of people and institutions I wish to acknowledge and thank for the support that they have given me during this process. First, I thank Dr. Darrell Stoll for not giving up on me even when I was thinking of giving up on the study myself. Second, I thank Dr. Mark Cracolice. The lessons taught through constructivism take longer, but sink in more because of it. I would like to thank the rest of my dissertation committee, Dr. David Erickson, Dr. Lisa Blank, Dr. Georgia Cobbs, and Dr. Fletcher Brown, for their time and patience in this process, from agreeing to sit on a committee for a student that that some of you had never met to filling in last minute as a sabbatical replacement, so that I could complete my degree this semester. In particular I thank Dr. Erickson for his careful edits on the proposal and dissertation. I would also like to acknowledge the Center for Learning in the West and the National Science Foundation (grant # M27875) for their generous support, and the following people at CLTW who made this opportunity possible: Dr. Cobbs, Dr. Elizabeth Swanson, and Dr. Libby Krussel- Knot. Thank you very much to Dr. Curt Doetkott and especially Dr. Wendy Troop-Gordon, both of North Dakota State University, for statistical support without which this study would have never been completed. Finally, I would like to thank the administration at MSUM for their support and patience in a process that took longer than it should but is hopefully worth it in the end. v TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT……………………………………………………………………………..…...ii ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..iii DEDICATION ………………………………………………………………………………iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………..………………………..…….v TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………...……....…vi LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………xiii LIST OF FIGURES ……..………………………………………………….....…………....xv CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM TO BE STUDIED………………………………... …….1 Background..……………………………………………………… ………1 The reform movement of the 1980s.….………….…..……… …….1 Nature of models...……………………………………………… …2 How do student conceptions of models form?......……………...3 Salient Student Variables …………..………………………………… …..5 Cognitive development…………………………………………. …5 Age and/or cognitive development as variables………… …..…….5 Why is Modeling Important? …………………………………...………...6 Science is intimately connected with models and modeling ………6 Models, hypotheses, laws, and theories…… ………………………7 Closing the gap…………….……………………………………. …8 Problem to be studied…………………………….……..…………… …...9 Theoretical Orientation.………………………………………… ………...9 Purpose………………………………………………….…..… …………10 vi Significance..…………………………………………………………….11 Research Questions………………………………………………… ……11 Research question…………………..……………………………. .11 Sub-questions……...………………………………………….... ...12 Hypotheses ………………………………………………………………12 Null hypotheses……………..…………………....…………....… .12 Alternative hypotheses…………………… ………………………13 Variables……….. .…………………………… …………………………13 Independent variable …………………………………………….13 Dependent variables ……………………………………………..13 Qualitative measures …………………………………………….14 Definitions………………………………………………..…………… ...15 Delimitations………………………………………………………… ….16 Limitations………. ………………………………………………………19 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……………………………………22 Independent and Dependent Variables and their Measurement ……..….22 Cognitive development ………………………………………….22 Nature of science ………………………………………………….25 Modeling ………………………………………………………….29 Critical analysis of key studies ……………………………………40 Conclusion… ……………………………………………………42 Improving Nature of Science Knowledge, Modeling Knowledge, and Cognitive Developmental Level ………………………………….43 Cognitive development ………………………………………….43 vii Nature of science………………………………………… ……….43 Modeling. ………………………………………………………..44 Critical analysis of selected studies ………………………………52 Relating the Variables…………………………………………… ………57 Cognitive development and models………………………...…... 57 Cognitive development and nature of science ..…………………..64 Nature of science and models ..…………………………………...65 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………..72 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..………………………………………………….73 Research Questions………………………………………………………73 Hypotheses..……………………………………………………………. ..74 Null hypothesis. ………………..………………………………….74 Alternative hypothesis…………………………… ……………….75 Methodology …………………………………………………………….75 Theoretical perspectives. ………………………………………….76 The Setting ….. …………………………………………………………..77 Pilot ………………………………………………………………………77 Research Design …………………………………………………………77 Instruction ………………………………………………………79 Variables and Definitions ………………………………………………..87 Variables ………………………………………………………….87 Operational definitions ……………………………………………89 Definitions ………………………………………………………..91 viii Data Collection…………………………………………………………...91 Quantitative instruments ………………………………………….91 Qualitative measures…………………. …………………………..98 Sample ………………………………………………………………….102 Data Treatment…………………………………………………………104 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS ..………………………………………………….107 Research Questions