The Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈A:수학교육)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A theoretical model for the utilization of intellectual resources between science and mathematics: An empirical study

수학 및 과학 간 지적 자원의 사용: 이론적 모형에 대한 실증 연구

  • Received : 2020.10.19
  • Accepted : 2020.11.18
  • Published : 2020.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

There have been mixed reports about the idea of utilization of resources developed from one discipline across disciplinary areas. Grounded with the argument that critical thinking is not domain-specific (Mulnix, 2012; Vaughn, 2005), we developed a theoretical model of intellectual resources (IR) that students develop and use when learning and doing mathematics and science. The theoretical model shows that there are two parallel epistemic practices students engage in science and mathematics - searching for reasons and giving reasons (Bailin, 2002; 2007; Mulnix, 2012). Applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Model to the data of 9,300 fourth grade students' responses to standardized science and mathematics assessments, we verified the theoretical model empirically. Empirically, the theoretical model is verified in that fourth graders do use the two epistemic practices, and the development of parallel practices in science impacts the development of the two practices in mathematics: A fourth grader's ability to search for reasons in science affects his or her ability to search for reasons in mathematics, and the ability to give reasons in science affects the same ability use in mathematics. The findings indicate that educators need to open ideas of sharing development of epistemic practices across disciplines because students who developed intellectual resources can utilize these in other settings.

학생들이 수학과 과학을 배울 때 개발 및 사용하는 지적 자원의 이론적 모형을 구성하였다. 9,300명의 미국 4학년 학생들의 수학 과학 성취도 평가의 응답을 통계적으로 분석하여 이 이론적 모델을 검증하였다. 그 결과는 이론적 모형이 타당함을 보여주며, 4학년 학생들의 과학 학습에서 인식적 실천은 수학 학습에서 인식적 실천의 발달에 영향을 준다.

Keywords

References

  1. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (2015). The effects of cognitive acceleration. In Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. & Clarke, S. (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp.127-140). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  2. Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 11(4), 361-375. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016042608621
  3. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2016). Epistemic (meta)cognition: Ways of thinking about knowledge and knowing. In J. A. Green, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 409-424). New York, NY: Routledge.
  4. Billing, D. (2007). Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher education: Cognitive skills. Higher education, 53(4), 483-516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-5628-5
  5. Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? Mathematical Modelling. Education, Engineering and Economics. Chichester, UK: Horwood, 222-231.
  6. Borromeo Ferri, R. B. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling process. ZDM, 38(2), 86-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655883
  7. Brown, N. J., Afflerbach, P. P., & Croninger, R. G. (2014). Assessment of critical-analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26(4), 543-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9280-4
  8. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, 154, 136-136.
  9. Byrne, B. M. (2012). Multivariate applications series: Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
  10. Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological methods & research, 36(4), 462-494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124108314720
  11. Chinn, C. A., & Rinehart, R. W. (2016). In J. A. Green, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 460-478). New York, NY: Routledge.
  12. Choi, K., Lee, Y.-S., & Park, Y. S. (2015). What CDM can tell about what students have learned: An analysis of TIMSS eighth grade mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(6), 1563.1577. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2015.1421a
  13. Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
  14. de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76(2), 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-011-9207-7
  15. Elby, A., Macrander, C., & Hammer, D. (2016). Epistemic cognition in science. In J. A. Green, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 113-127). New York, NY: Routledge.
  16. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
  17. Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Braten, I. (2016). Handbook of Epistemic Cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
  18. Hayduk, L. A., & Glaser, D. N. (2000). Jiving the four-step, waltzing around factor analysis, and other serious fun. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0701_01
  19. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.
  20. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  21. Hwang, J., Choi, K., Hand, B. (2016, November). Relationships among mathematics and science reasoning practices. Poster presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Tucson, AZ.
  22. Hwang, J., Choi, K., & Hand, B. (2020a). Examining domain-general use of reasoning across science and mathematics through performance on standardized assessments. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 20(3), 521-537. doi:10.1007/s42330-020-00108-4
  23. Hwang J. Choi, K., & Hand, B. (2020b). Epistemic Actions and Mathematics Achievement. Submitted for publication.
  24. Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Beker, K. (2016). Argumentative reasoning. In J. A. Green, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 39-53). New York, NY: Routledge.
  25. Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams (Ed.), Handbook of methodological innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  26. Lawson, A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 716. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20067
  27. Mason, L. (2016). Psychological perspectives on measuring epistemic cognition. In J. A. Green, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 375-392). New York: Routledge.
  28. Moshman, D. (2014). Epistemic cognition and development: The psychology of justification and truth. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  29. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., OSullivan, C. Y., & Preuschoff, C. (2009). TIMSS 2011 assessment frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
  30. Mulnix, J. W. (2012). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 464-479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  32. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  33. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  34. O'Connor, C., Michaels, S., & Caphin, S. (2015). "Scaling Down" to Explore the Role of Talk in Learning: From District Intervention to Controlled Classroom Study. In Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. & Clarke, S. (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp.111-126). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  35. R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
  36. Resnick, L. B., & Schantz, F. (2015). Re-thinking Intelligence: schools that build the mind. European Journal of Education, 50(3), 340-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12139
  37. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of educational research, 99(6), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
  38. Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
  39. Steiger, J. H. (2000). Point estimation, hypothesis testing, and interval estimation using the RMSEA: Some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(2), 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0702_1
  40. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
  41. Stromso, H., & Kammerer, Y. (2016). Epistemic cognition and reading for understanding in the internet age. In J. A. Green, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 230-246). New York, NY: Routledge.
  42. Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11(3), 287-305. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.3.287
  43. Vaughn, L. (2005) The Power of Critical Thinking: Effective reasoning about ordinary and extraordinary claims. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  44. Webb, P., Whitlow, J. W., & Venter, D. (2016). From exploratory talk to abstract reasoning: A case for far transfer?. Educational Psychology Review, 29 565-581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9369-z
  45. Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles).
  46. Zawojewski, J. (2010). Problem solving versus modeling. In R Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students' mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 237-243). New York, NY: Springer.