Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Hypothetical Learning Progression for Quantifying Phenomena in Science

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The debate regarding the validity of Mendel’s data is important but beyond the scope of this article.

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, G. E. (2003). Mendel and modern genetics: the legacy for today. Endeavour, 27, 63–68.

    Google 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.

  • Aschbacher, P., & Alonzo, A. C. (2006). Examining the utility of elementary science notebooks for formative assessment purposes. Educational Assessment, 11, 179–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, C., Delgado, C., Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Investigating teacher learning supports in high school biology curricular programs to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 977–998.

    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 

  • Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: a causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.

    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 

  • Crosland, M. (1969). The congress on definitive metric standards, 1798–1799: the first international scientific conference? Isis, 60, 226–231.

    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 

  • Duncan, R., Chinn, C., & Barzilai, S. (2018). Grasp of evidence: problematizing and expanding the next generation science standards’ conceptualization of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 907–937.

    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.

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data (revised ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers’ enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1181–1210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., & Heredia, S. C. (2014). Exploring the influence of learning progressions in two teacher communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 982–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gayon, J. (2016). From Mendel to epigenetics: history of genetics. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 339, 225–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunckel, K. L., Covitt, B. A., & Salinas, I. (2018). Learning progressions as tools for supporting teacher content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge about water in environmental systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 1339–1362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha, M., & Nehm, R. H. (2014). Darwin’s difficulties and students’ struggles with trait loss: cognitive-historical parallelisms in evolutionary explanation. Science & Education, 23, 1051–1074.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., & Sikorski, T.-R. (2015). Implications of complexity for research on learning progressions. Science Education, 99, 424–431.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012b). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1149–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H., Zhan, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2013). Developing a fine-grained learning progression framework for carbon-transforming processes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1663–1697.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H., Shin, H., Johnson, M. E., Kim, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2015b). Developing learning progression-based teacher knowledge measures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(9), 1269–1295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H., Johnson, M. E., Shin, H. J., & Anderson, C. W. (2017). Promoting student progressions in science classrooms: a video study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(7), 852–883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H., Mikeska, J. N., Hokayem, H., & Mavronikolas, E. (2019a). Toward coherence in curriculum, instruction, and assessment: a review of learning progression literature. Science Education, 103(5), 1206–1234.

    Google 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.

  • Kampourakis, K. (2013). Mendel and the path to genetics: portraying science as a social process. Science & Education, 22, 293–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73.

    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 

  • Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Science, 31, 549–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions: University of Chicago press.

  • Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004a). Metacognition: a bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Into Practice, 43, 268–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004b). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inference. Journal of Cognitive Development, 5, 261–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 113–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, E., Hull, M. M., Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2013). How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems. Science Education, 97, 32–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E. (1983). The acquisition of formal operational schemata during adolescence: the role of the biconditional. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E. (2004). The nature and development of scientific reasoning: a synthetic view. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 307–338.

    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 

  • Mayes, R. L., Peterson, F., & Bonilla, R. (2013). Quantitative reasoning learning progressions for environmental science: developing a framework. Numeracy: Advancing Education in Quantitative Literacy, 6, 1), 1–1),28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayes, R. L., Forrester, J., Christus, J. S., Peterson, F., & Walker, R. (2014). Quantitative reasoning learning progression: the matrix. Numeracy: Advancing Education in Quantitative Literacy, 7(2), 1–20.

    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 

  • McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Berland, L. (2017). What is (or should be) scientific evidence use in k-12 classrooms? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 672–689.

    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.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niss, M. (2017). Obstacles related to structuring mathematization encountered by students when solving physics problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 1441–1462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(23), 463–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Rafanelli, S., & Kind, P. (2018). Toward a more coherent model for science education than the crosscutting concepts of the Next Generation Science Standards: the affordances of styles of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 962–981.

    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 

  • Planinic, M., Milin-Sipus, Z., Katic, H., Susac, A., & Ivanjek, L. (2012). Comparison of student understanding of line graph slope in physics and mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1393–1414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovelli, C. (2011). Forget time. Foundations of Physics, 41, 1475–1490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, N. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2013). From theory to data: the process of refining learning progressions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 7–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinner, A. (1994). The story of force: from Aristotle to Einstein. Physics Education, 29, 77–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. W. (1993). Quantitative reasoning, complexity, and additive structures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 165–208.

    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

  • Vass, E., Schiller, D., & Nappi, A. J. (2000). The effects of instructional intervention on improving proportional, probabilistic, and correlational reasoning skills among undergraduate education majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 981–995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P. H., Sztajn, P., Edgington, C., & Confrey. (2014). Teachers’ use of their mathematical knowledge for teaching in learning a mathematics learning trajectory. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences under grant R305A160219.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Testing Service, 660 Rosedale Rd., Princeton, NJ, 08541, USA

    Hui Jin, Malcolm I. Bauer, E. Caroline Wylie, Dante Cisterna & Kenneth F. Llort

  2. North Carolina State University, 326N Poe Hall, 2310 Stinson Dr., Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Cesar Delgado

Authors
  1. Hui Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cesar Delgado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Malcolm I. Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Caroline Wylie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dante Cisterna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kenneth F. Llort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Jin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jin, H., Delgado, C., Bauer, M.I. et al. A Hypothetical Learning Progression for Quantifying Phenomena in Science. Sci & Educ 28, 1181–1208 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00076-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00076-8

Search

Navigation