Staff View
Promoting students’ epistemic cognition and conceptual learning through the design of science learning environments

Descriptive

TitleInfo
Title
Promoting students’ epistemic cognition and conceptual learning through the design of science learning environments
Name (type = personal)
NamePart (type = family)
Rinehart
NamePart (type = given)
Ronald W.
NamePart (type = date)
1978-
DisplayForm
Ronald W. Rinehart
Role
RoleTerm (authority = RULIB)
author
Name (type = personal)
NamePart (type = family)
Chinn
NamePart (type = given)
Clark A.
DisplayForm
Clark A. Chinn
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
Role
RoleTerm (authority = RULIB)
chair
Name (type = personal)
NamePart (type = family)
Duncan
NamePart (type = given)
Ravit Golan
DisplayForm
Ravit Golan Duncan
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
Role
RoleTerm (authority = RULIB)
co-chair
Name (type = personal)
NamePart (type = family)
Gitomer
NamePart (type = given)
Drew H.
DisplayForm
Drew H. Gitomer
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
Role
RoleTerm (authority = RULIB)
internal member
Name (type = personal)
NamePart (type = family)
Duschl
NamePart (type = given)
Richard A.
DisplayForm
Richard A. Duschl
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
Role
RoleTerm (authority = RULIB)
outside member
Name (type = corporate)
NamePart
Rutgers University
Role
RoleTerm (authority = RULIB)
degree grantor
Name (type = corporate)
NamePart
School of Graduate Studies
Role
RoleTerm (authority = RULIB)
school
TypeOfResource
Text
Genre (authority = marcgt)
theses
OriginInfo
DateCreated (qualifier = exact)
2017
DateOther (type = degree); (qualifier = exact)
2017-10
CopyrightDate (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact)
2017
Place
PlaceTerm (type = code)
xx
Language
LanguageTerm (authority = ISO639-2b); (type = code)
eng
Abstract (type = abstract)
When scientists develop knowledge about the world, they engage in a variety of complex epistemic processes (Allchin, 2011; Hardwig, 1985). They evaluate scientific models and evidence (Giere, 2004) and evaluate not only their own claims but the claims of others (Chinn, Rinehart, & Buckland, 2014) through the use of argumentation (Thagard, 2000). School science often omits the authentic epistemic practices of scientists, producing a false characterization of their work (Allchin, 2004; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002, Duschl, 1988). Science classrooms tend to be epistemically sterile environments (Goldberg, 2013) focused on unproblematic accounts of science (Allchin, 2004; Duschl, 1990). Recent calls for reform argue that there is a need for learning environment designs where students grapple with opposing perspectives and uncertainty like that found in the world outside of school (Britt, Richter, & Router, 2014). This research addresses these concerns in three parts. Chapter 2 presents a design case discussing four key design principles for engaging students with models and evidence in environments that embrace uncertainty and multiple, sometimes conflicting, perspectives. These decisions involve: identifying phenomena for students to investigate, designing for student engagement with modeling, developing evidence for use during modeling, and fostering productive disciplinary engagement (Engle & Conant, 2002). Chapter 3 examines how students use, evaluate, and re-evaluate evidence over time and how their ideas about one piece of evidence impact their ideas about other evidence. I present the results of a three-day model-based inquiry lesson with 7th grade students who investigated the possibility that some humans might be genetically resistant to HIV. Existing frameworks for evaluating student reasoning do not include evidence re-evaluation or the combination of pieces of evidence to construct a new body of evidence. I argue that normative accounts of good reasoning in science classes could be improved by taking both of these practices into account. Chapter 4 presents the results of a three-day modeling activity in which 7th grade life science students developed models of inheritance in response to multiple evidence sets. Students developed models that: were consistent with evidence, were internally consistent, increased in their use of causal mechanisms, and increased in their consistency with normative explanations of inheritance. Students’ abilities to correctly make predictions about novel inheritance problems significantly increased over time.
Subject (authority = RUETD)
Topic
Education
Subject (authority = ETD-LCSH)
Topic
Science--Study and teaching
RelatedItem (type = host)
TitleInfo
Title
Rutgers University Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Identifier (type = RULIB)
ETD
Identifier
ETD_8327
PhysicalDescription
Form (authority = gmd)
electronic resource
InternetMediaType
application/pdf
InternetMediaType
text/xml
Extent
1 online resource (xiii, 205 p. : ill.)
Note (type = degree)
Ph.D.
Note (type = bibliography)
Includes bibliographical references
Note (type = statement of responsibility)
by Ronald W. Rinehart
RelatedItem (type = host)
TitleInfo
Title
School of Graduate Studies Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Identifier (type = local)
rucore10001600001
Location
PhysicalLocation (authority = marcorg); (displayLabel = Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)
NjNbRU
Identifier (type = doi)
doi:10.7282/T35Q508C
Back to the top

Rights

RightsDeclaration (ID = rulibRdec0006)
The author owns the copyright to this work.
RightsHolder (type = personal)
Name
FamilyName
Rinehart
GivenName
Ronald
MiddleName
W.
Role
Copyright Holder
RightsEvent
Type
Permission or license
DateTime (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact); (point = start)
2017-09-12 13:54:18
AssociatedEntity
Name
Ronald Rinehart
Role
Copyright holder
Affiliation
Rutgers University. School of Graduate Studies
AssociatedObject
Type
License
Name
Author Agreement License
Detail
I hereby grant to the Rutgers University Libraries and to my school the non-exclusive right to archive, reproduce and distribute my thesis or dissertation, in whole or in part, and/or my abstract, in whole or in part, in and from an electronic format, subject to the release date subsequently stipulated in this submittal form and approved by my school. I represent and stipulate that the thesis or dissertation and its abstract are my original work, that they do not infringe or violate any rights of others, and that I make these grants as the sole owner of the rights to my thesis or dissertation and its abstract. I represent that I have obtained written permissions, when necessary, from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis or dissertation and will supply copies of such upon request by my school. I acknowledge that RU ETD and my school will not distribute my thesis or dissertation or its abstract if, in their reasonable judgment, they believe all such rights have not been secured. I acknowledge that I retain ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use all or part of this thesis or dissertation in future works, such as articles or books.
RightsEvent
DateTime (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact); (point = start)
2017-10-31
DateTime (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact); (point = end)
2019-10-31
Type
Embargo
Detail
Access to this PDF has been restricted at the author's request. It will be publicly available after October 31st, 2019.
Copyright
Status
Copyright protected
Availability
Status
Open
Reason
Permission or license
Back to the top

Technical

RULTechMD (ID = TECHNICAL1)
ContentModel
ETD
OperatingSystem (VERSION = 5.1)
windows xp
CreatingApplication
Version
1.5
DateCreated (point = end); (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact)
2017-09-12T12:50:16
DateCreated (point = end); (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = exact)
2017-09-12T12:51:50
ApplicationName
Adobe PDF Library 15.0
Back to the top
Version 8.3.13
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2020