science research thinking

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

35 Scientific Thinking and Reasoning

Kevin N. Dunbar, Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

David Klahr, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

• Published: 21 November 2012
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Scientific thinking refers to both thinking about the content of science and the set of reasoning processes that permeate the field of science: induction, deduction, experimental design, causal reasoning, concept formation, hypothesis testing, and so on. Here we cover both the history of research on scientific thinking and the different approaches that have been used, highlighting common themes that have emerged over the past 50 years of research. Future research will focus on the collaborative aspects of scientific thinking, on effective methods for teaching science, and on the neural underpinnings of the scientific mind.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education
• > Improving Students’ Scientific Thinking

Book contents

• The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• How Cognitive Psychology Can Inform Evidence-Based Education Reform
• Part I Foundations
• Part II Science and Math
• 3 Teaching Critical Thinking as if Our Future Depends on It, Because It Does
• 4 Improving Students’ Scientific Thinking
• 5 Spatial Skills, Reasoning, and Mathematics
• 6 Iterative Development of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Mathematics Learning and Instruction
• 7 Development of Fraction Understanding
• 8 Learning How to Solve Problems by Studying Examples
• 9 Harnessing Our Hands to Teach Mathematics
• Part III Reading and Writing
• Part IV General Learning Strategies
• Part V Metacognition

4 - Improving Students’ Scientific Thinking

from Part II - Science and Math

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2019

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Improving Students’ Scientific Thinking
• By David Klahr , Corinne Zimmerman , Bryan J. Matlen
• Edited by John Dunlosky , Kent State University, Ohio , Katherine A. Rawson , Kent State University, Ohio
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education
• Online publication: 08 February 2019
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.005

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Developing Scientific Thinking and Research Skills Through the Research Thesis or Dissertation

• First Online: 22 September 2019

Cite this chapter

• Gina Wisker 3 , 4  

1354 Accesses

3 Citations

This chapter explores higher level scientific thinking skills that research students need to develop during their research learning journeys towards their dissertation/thesis at postgraduate levels, and also final year undergraduate (Australian honours year) dissertation. A model of four quadrants is introduced. Practice and experience-informed examples are presented to show how higher order skills can be realised and embedded so that they become established ways of thinking, researching, creating, and expressing knowledge and understanding.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Building Confidence About the Academic Journey

How Do Teachers Meet the Academic Needs of High-Ability Students in Science?

Transforming from naïve research student to confident critical thinker.

Aitchison, C., & Guerin, C. (Eds.). (2014). Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond: Innovations in practice and theory . Abingdon: Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Archer, L. (2008). Younger academics’ constructions of ‘authenticity’, ‘success’ and professional identity. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (4), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802211729 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Baker, V. L., & Lattuca, L. R. (2010). Developmental networks and learning: Toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development during doctoral study. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (7), 807–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903501887 .

Bell, J. (2010). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science . Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.

Boud, D. (Ed.). (1988). Developing student autonomy in learning (2nd ed.). New York: Nichols Publishing Company.

Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education, 23 (2), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380384 .

Brew, A. (2001). Conceptions of research: A phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120076255 .

Bruce, N. (1995). Practising what we preach: Creating the conditions for student autonomy. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics & Language Teaching , 18 , 73–88. Retrieved from http://hkjo.lib.hku.hk/archive/files/30cc63ad3122e0ad29590de2006ba6d0.pdf .

Butler, S. (1999). Catalysing student autonomy through action research in a problem centered learning environment. Research in Science Education, 29 (1), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461184 .

Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (2005). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231–256). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Castello, M., Kobayashi, S., McGinn, M. K., Pechar, H., Vekkaila, J., & Wisker, G. (2017). Researcher identity in transition: Signals to identify and manage spheres of activity in a risk-career. Frontline Learning Research , 3 (3), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v3i3.149 .

Davies, A., & Danaher, P. A. (2014). Capacity-building for western expatriate nurses and Australian early career researchers. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1177 .

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fazey, D. M. A., & Fazey, J. A. (2001). The potential for autonomy in learning: Perceptions of competence, motivation and locus of control in first-year undergraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (3), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120076309 .

Flanagan, M. (2018). Michael Thomas Flanagan, University College London, London . Retrieved April 4, 2019, from https://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga .

Grant, B. M. (2008). Agonistic struggle: Master-slave dialogues in humanities supervision. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7 (1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022207084880 .

Haksever, A. M., & Manisali, E. (2000). Assessing supervision requirements of PhD students: The case of construction management and engineering in the UK. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25 (1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/030437900308616 .

Healey, M., Bovill, C., & Jenkins, A. (2015). Students as partners in learning. In J. Lea (Ed.), Enhancing learning and teaching in higher education: Engaging with the dimensions of practice (pp. 141–172). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education . York: HE Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/engagement-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher .

Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2016). Students as partners: Reflections on a conceptual model. Teaching and Learning Inquiry , 4 (2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.2.3 .

Holbrook, A., Shaw, K., Scevak, J., Bourke, S., Cantwell, R., & Budd, J. (2014). PhD candidate expectations: Exploring mismatch with experience. International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 9 , 329–346. https://doi.org/10.28945/2078 .

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Book   Google Scholar  

Jenkins, E. W. (2001). Research in science education in Europe: Retrospect and prospect. In H. Behrendt (Ed.), Research in science education: Past, present and future (pp. 17–26). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47639-8_2 .

Johansson, T., Wisker, G., Claesson, S., Strandler, O., & Saalman, E. (2013). PhD supervision as an emotional process—Critical situations and emotional boundary work. Pertanika: Journal of Social Science and Humanities , 22 , 605–622.

Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing. Higher Education Research and Development, 28 (4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903067930 .

Kobayashi, S., Grout, B., & Rump, C. Ø. (2013). Interaction and learning in PhD supervision—A qualitative study of supervision with multiple supervisors. Dansk Universitetspaedagogisk Tidsskrift , 8 (14), 13–25. Retrieved from https://tidsskrift.dk/dut/article/download/7174/6653 .

Kobayashi, S., Grout, B. W., & Rump, C. Ø. (2015). Opportunities to learn scientific thinking in joint doctoral supervision. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52 (1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981837 .

Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Learning to do qualitative data analysis: An observational study of doctoral work. Qualitative Health Research, 17 (10), 1442–1452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307306924 .

Land, R., Meyer, J., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (2008). Threshold concepts within the disciplines . Rotterdam: Sense.

Leibowitz, B., Wisker, G., & Lamberti, P. (2018). ‘Crossing over’ into research on teaching and learning. In E. Bitzer (Ed.), Spaces, journeys and new horizons for postgraduate supervision (pp. 149–162). Stellenbosch, South Africa: SUN Press.

Lombardo, T. (2006). The evolution of future consciousness: The nature and historical development of the human capacity to think about the future . Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

Lombardo, T. (2007). Developing constructive and creative attitudes and behaviors about the future: Part III—The self‐narrative, optimism and self‐efficacy, and the evolving future self. World Futures Study Federation : Futures Bulletin , 32 (2). Retrieved from https://www.centerforfutureconsciousness.com/pdf_files/WFSFArticles/Bulletins/FutConsArticle3.pdf .

Lombardo, T., & Richter, J. (2004). Evolving future consciousness through the pursuit of virtue. In H. Didsbury (Ed.), Thinking creatively in turbulent times . Bethesda, MD: World Future Society.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving student learning theory and practice—Ten years on . Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

McAlpine, L. (2012). Shining a light on doctoral reading: Implications for doctoral identities and pedagogies. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49 (4), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.728875 .

McAlpine, L., Amundsen, C., & Turner, G. (2013). Identity-trajectory: Reframing early career academic experience. British Educational Research Journey, 40 (6), 952–969. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3123 .

Morris, C., & Wisker, G. (2011). Troublesome encounters: Strategies for managing the wellbeing of master’s and doctoral education students during their learning processes (HEA ESCalate Subject Centre Report). Retrieved from http://escalate.ac.uk/6828 .

Muurlink, O., & Poyatos Matas, C. (2010). A higher degree of stress: Academic wellbeing. In L. Marshall & C. Morris (Eds.), Taking wellbeing forward in higher education: Reflections on theory and practice (pp. 60–71). Falmer: University of Brighton Press.

Murray, R. (2016). How to write a thesis (4th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Murtonen, M. (2005). University students’ research orientations: Do negative attitudes exist toward quantitative methods? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49 (3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830500109568 .

Murtonen, M. (2015). University students’ understanding of the concepts empirical, theoretical, qualitative, and quantitative research. Teaching in Higher Education, 20 (7), 684–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1072152 .

Murtonen, M., Olkinuora, E., Tynjälä, P., & Lehtinen, E. (2008). “Do I need research skills in working life?”: University students’ motivation and difficulties in quantitative methods courses. Higher Education, 56 (5), 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9113-9 .

Phillips, E., & Pugh, D. S. (2010). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors . Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.

Poyatos Matas, C. (2008, July). An innovative approach to research supervision . Paper presented at the University of Brighton Learning and Teaching Conference, Brighton, UK.

Poyatos Matas, C. (2009). A new approach to research supervision. In J. Barlow, G. Louw, & M. Rice (Eds.), Social purpose and creativity—Integrating learning in the real world (pp. 28–32). Falmer: University of Brighton Press.

Pyhältö, K., Nummenmaa, A. R., Soini, T., Stubb, J., & Lonka, K. (2012). Research on scholarly communities and development of scholarly identity in Finnish doctoral education. In T. S. Ahola & D. M. Hoffman (Eds.), Higher education research in Finland: Emerging structures and contemporary issues (pp. 337–357). Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylä University Press.

Schulze, S. (2012). Empowering and disempowering students in student-supervisor relationships. Koers-Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, 77 (2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/koers.v77i2.47 .

Strandler, O., Johansson, T., Wisker, G., & Claesson, S. (2014). Supervisor or counsellor? Emotional boundary work in supervision. International Journal for Researcher Development, 5 (2), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-03-2014-0002 .

Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2009). Doctorateness as a threshold concept. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 46 (3), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903069027 .

Vekkaila, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2013). Focusing on doctoral students’ experiences of engagement in thesis work. Frontline Learning Research, 1 (2), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v1i2.43 .

Walliman, N. S. R. (2011). Your research project: Designing and planning your work . London: Sage.

Willison, J. (2009). Multiple contexts, multiple outcomes, one conceptual framework for research skill development in the undergraduate curriculum. CUR Quarterly , 29 (3), 10–14. Retrieved from https://www.adelaide.edu.au/rsd/evidence/related-articles/willison_2009_CURQ_29_3_.pdf .

Willison, J. (2012). When academics integrate research skill development in the curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 31 (6), 905–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.658760 .

Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2005). 2020 Vision: An information literacy continuum for students primary school to post graduation. In A. Brew & C. Asmar (Eds.), Higher education in a changing world: Proceedings of the 28th HERDSA annual conference (pp. 633–641). Sydney, NSW, Australia: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.

Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2006). Research skill development framework . Retrieved April 4, 2019, from www.adelaide.edu.au/rsd .

Willison, J., Sabir, F., & Thomas, J. (2017). Shifting dimensions of autonomy in students’ research and employment. Higher Education Research and Development, 36 (2), 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1178216 .

Wisker, G. (2001). The postgraduate research handbook . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wisker, G. (2009/2018). The undergraduate research handbook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wisker, G. (2012). The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations . Basingstoke: Palgrave Research Skills.

Wisker, G. (2014). Voice, vision and articulation: Conceptual threshold crossing in academic writing. In C. O’Mahony, A. Buchanan, M. O’Rourke, & B. Higgs (Eds.), Proceedings of the National Academy’s sixth annual conference and the fourth biennial threshold concepts conference (pp. 159–164). Cork, Ireland: NAIRTL. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558533 .

Wisker, G. (2015). Getting published . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wisker, G. (2016). Toil and trouble: Professional and personal expectations and identities in academic writing for publication. In J. Smith (Ed.), Identity work in the contemporary university: Exploring an uneasy profession (pp. 143–154). Rotterdam: Sense.

Wisker, G. (2018). Frameworks and freedoms: Supervising research learning and the undergraduate dissertation. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice , 15 (4), 1–14. Retrieved from https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol15/iss4/2 .

Wisker, G., & Kiley, M. (2017). Helping students demonstrate mastery of doctoral threshold concepts. In S. Carter & D. Laurs (Eds.), Developing research writing: A handbook for supervisors and advisers (pp. 173–178). Abingdon: Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Wisker, G., Kiley, M., & Aiston, S. (2006, March). Making the learning leap: Research students crossing conceptual thresholds . Paper presented at the quality in postgraduate research conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Wisker, G., Morris, C., Cheng, M., Masika, R., Warnes, M., Lilly, J. …, Robinson, G. (2010). Doctoral learning journeys—Final report of the NTFS-funded project . Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ntfs/Projects/Doctoral_Learning_Journeys .

Wisker, G., & Robinson, G. (2013). Doctoral ‘orphans’: Nurturing and supporting the success of postgraduates who have lost their supervisors. Higher Education Research & Development, 32 (2), 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.657160 .

Wisker, G., Robinson, G., & Kiley, M. (2008, March). Crossing liminal spaces: Encouraging postgraduate students to cross conceptual thresholds and achieve threshold concepts in their research . Paper presented at the quality in postgraduate research: Research education in the new global environment—Part 2. Canberra, Australia.

Wisker, G., Robinson, G., Trafford, V., Warnes, M., & Creighton, E. (2003). From supervisory dialogues to successful PhDs: Strategies supporting and enabling the learning conversations of staff and students at postgraduate level. Teaching in Higher Education, 8 (3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510309400 .

Wisker, G., & Savin-Baden, M. (2009). Priceless conceptual thresholds: Beyond the ‘stuck place’ in writing. London Review of Education, 7 (3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460903290207 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Brighton, Brighton, UK

Gina Wisker

University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gina Wisker .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

Mari Murtonen

Department of Higher Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Kieran Balloo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Wisker, G. (2019). Developing Scientific Thinking and Research Skills Through the Research Thesis or Dissertation. In: Murtonen, M., Balloo, K. (eds) Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24215-2_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24215-2_9

Published : 22 September 2019

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-24214-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-24215-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• MISSION / VISION
• DIVERSITY STATEMENT
• CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
• Kide Science
• STEMscopes Science
• Collaborate Science
• STEMscopes Math
• Math Nation
• STEMscopes Coding
• Mastery Coding
• DIVE-in Engineering
• STEMscopes Streaming
• Tuva Data Literacy
• NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STEM EDUCATION
• STEMSCOPES PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
• RESEARCH & EFFICACY STUDIES
• STEM EDUCATION WEBINARS
• LEARNING EQUITY
• DISTANCE LEARNING
• PRODUCT UPDATES
• LMS INTEGRATIONS
• STEMSCOPES BLOG
• FREE RESOURCES
• TESTIMONIALS

Critical Thinking in Science: Fostering Scientific Reasoning Skills in Students

ALI Staff | Published  July 13, 2023

Thinking like a scientist is a central goal of all science curricula.

As students learn facts, methodologies, and methods, what matters most is that all their learning happens through the lens of scientific reasoning what matters most is that it’s all through the lens of scientific reasoning.

That way, when it comes time for them to take on a little science themselves, either in the lab or by theoretically thinking through a solution, they understand how to do it in the right context.

One component of this type of thinking is being critical. Based on facts and evidence, critical thinking in science isn’t exactly the same as critical thinking in other subjects.

Students have to doubt the information they’re given until they can prove it’s right.

They have to truly understand what’s true and what’s hearsay. It’s complex, but with the right tools and plenty of practice, students can get it right.

What is critical thinking?

This particular style of thinking stands out because it requires reflection and analysis. Based on what's logical and rational, thinking critically is all about digging deep and going beyond the surface of a question to establish the quality of the question itself.

It ensures students put their brains to work when confronted with a question rather than taking every piece of information they’re given at face value.

It’s engaged, higher-level thinking that will serve them well in school and throughout their lives.

Why is critical thinking important?

Critical thinking is important when it comes to making good decisions.

It gives us the tools to think through a choice rather than quickly picking an option — and probably guessing wrong. Think of it as the all-important ‘why.’

Why is that true? Why is that right? Why is this the only option?

Finding answers to questions like these requires critical thinking. They require you to really analyze both the question itself and the possible solutions to establish validity.

Will that choice work for me? Does this feel right based on the evidence?

How does critical thinking in science impact students?

Critical thinking is essential in science.

It’s what naturally takes students in the direction of scientific reasoning since evidence is a key component of this style of thought.

It’s not just about whether evidence is available to support a particular answer but how valid that evidence is.

It’s about whether the information the student has fits together to create a strong argument and how to use verifiable facts to get a proper response.

Critical thinking in science helps students:

• Actively evaluate information
• Identify bias
• Separate the logic within arguments
• Analyze evidence

4 Ways to promote critical thinking

Figuring out how to develop critical thinking skills in science means looking at multiple strategies and deciding what will work best at your school and in your class.

Based on your student population, their needs and abilities, not every option will be a home run.

These particular examples are all based on the idea that for students to really learn how to think critically, they have to practice doing it. 

Each focuses on engaging students with science in a way that will motivate them to work independently as they hone their scientific reasoning skills.

Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning centers on critical thinking.

Teachers can shape a project around the thinking style to give students practice with evaluating evidence or other critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking also happens during collaboration, evidence-based thought, and reflection.

For example, setting students up for a research project is not only a great way to get them to think critically, but it also helps motivate them to learn.

Allowing them to pick the topic (that isn’t easy to look up online), develop their own research questions, and establish a process to collect data to find an answer lets students personally connect to science while using critical thinking at each stage of the assignment.

They’ll have to evaluate the quality of the research they find and make evidence-based decisions.

Self-Reflection

Adding a question or two to any lab practicum or activity requiring students to pause and reflect on what they did or learned also helps them practice critical thinking.

At this point in an assignment, they’ll pause and assess independently. 

You can ask students to reflect on the conclusions they came up with for a completed activity, which really makes them think about whether there's any bias in their answer.

Addressing Assumptions

One way critical thinking aligns so perfectly with scientific reasoning is that it encourages students to challenge all assumptions. 

Evidence is king in the science classroom, but even when students work with hard facts, there comes the risk of a little assumptive thinking.

Working with students to identify assumptions in existing research or asking them to address an issue where they suspend their own judgment and simply look at established facts polishes their that critical eye.

They’re getting practice without tossing out opinions, unproven hypotheses, and speculation in exchange for real data and real results, just like a scientist has to do.

Lab Activities With Trial-And-Error

Another component of critical thinking (as well as thinking like a scientist) is figuring out what to do when you get something wrong.

Backtracking can mean you have to rethink a process, redesign an experiment, or reevaluate data because the outcomes don’t make sense, but it’s okay.

The ability to get something wrong and recover is not only a valuable life skill, but it’s where most scientific breakthroughs start. Reminding students of this is always a valuable lesson.

Labs that include comparative activities are one way to increase critical thinking skills, especially when introducing new evidence that might cause students to change their conclusions once the lab has begun.

For example, you provide students with two distinct data sets and ask them to compare them.

With only two choices, there are a finite amount of conclusions to draw, but then what happens when you bring in a third data set? Will it void certain conclusions? Will it allow students to make new conclusions, ones even more deeply rooted in evidence?

Thinking like a scientist

When students get the opportunity to think critically, they’re learning to trust the data over their ‘gut,’ to approach problems systematically and make informed decisions using ‘good’ evidence.

When practiced enough, this ability will engage students in science in a whole new way, providing them with opportunities to dig deeper and learn more.

It can help enrich science and motivate students to approach the subject just like a professional would.

Share this post!

Related articles.

STEMscopes Texas Math Meets TEKS and ELPS Standards!

There is quite a bit of uncertainty out there about the newly established Instructional Materials Review and Approval...

10 Quick, Fun Math Warm-Up Activities

Creating an environment that allows students to engage with fun math activities, versus rote memorization, helps...

Overview of Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) and House Bill 1605

In May 2023, Texas approved a transformative bill (House Bill 1605) that significantly impacts educational funding for...

STAY INFORMED ON THE LATEST IN STEM. SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Which stem subjects are of interest to you.

STEMscopes Tech Specifications      STEMscopes Security Information & Compliance      Privacy Policy      Terms and Conditions

© 2024 Accelerate Learning

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Supporting Early Scientific Thinking Through Curiosity

Curiosity and curiosity-driven questioning are important for developing scientific thinking and more general interest and motivation to pursue scientific questions. Curiosity has been operationalized as preference for uncertainty ( Jirout and Klahr, 2012 ), and engaging in inquiry-an essential part of scientific reasoning-generates high levels of uncertainty ( Metz, 2004 ; van Schijndel et al., 2018 ). This perspective piece begins by discussing mechanisms through which curiosity can support learning and motivation in science, including motivating information-seeking behaviors, gathering information in response to curiosity, and promoting deeper understanding through connection-making related to addressing information gaps. In the second part of the article, a recent theory of how to promote curiosity in schools is discussed in relation to early childhood science reasoning. Finally, potential directions for research on the development of curiosity and curiosity-driven inquiry in young children are discussed. Although quite a bit is known about the development of children’s question asking specifically, and there are convincing arguments for developing scientific curiosity to promote science reasoning skills, there are many important areas for future research to address how to effectively use curiosity to support science learning.

Scientific Thinking and Curiosity

Scientific thinking is a type of knowledge seeking involving intentional information seeking, including asking questions, testing hypotheses, making observations, recognizing patterns, and making inferences ( Kuhn, 2002 ; Morris et al., 2012 ). Much research indicates that children engage in this information-seeking process very early on through questioning behaviors and exploration. In fact, children are quite capable and effective in gathering needed information through their questions, and can reason about the effectiveness of questions, use probabilistic information to guide their questioning, and evaluate who they should question to get information, among other related skills (see Ronfard et al., 2018 for review). Although formal educational contexts typically give students questions to explore or steps to follow to “do science,” young children’s scientific thinking is driven by natural curiosity about the world around them, and the desire to understand it and generate their own questions about the world ( Chouinard et al., 2007 ; Duschl et al., 2007 ; French et al., 2013 ; Jirout and Zimmerman, 2015 ).

What Does Scientific Curiosity Look Like?

Curiosity is defined here as the desire to seek information to address knowledge gaps resulting from uncertainty or ambiguity ( Loewenstein, 1994 ; Jirout and Klahr, 2012 ). Curiosity is often seen as ubiquitous within early childhood. Simply observing children can provide numerous examples of the bidirectional link between curiosity and scientific reasoning, such as when curiosity about a phenomenon leads to experimentation, which, in turn, generates new questions and new curiosities. For example, an infant drops a toy to observe what will happen. When an adult stoops to pick it up, the infant becomes curious about how many times an adult will hand it back before losing interest. Or, a child might observe a butterfly over a period of time, and wonder why it had its wings folded or open at different points, how butterflies fly, why different butterflies are different colors, and so on (see Figure 1 ). Observations lead to theories, which may be immature, incomplete, or even inaccurate, but so are many early scientific theories. Importantly, theories can help identify knowledge gaps, leading to new instances of curiosity and motivating children’s information seeking to acquire new knowledge and, gradually, correct misconceptions. Like adults, children learn from their experiences and observations and use information about the probability of events to revise their theories ( Gopnik, 2012 ).

A child looks intently at a butterfly, becoming curious about the many things she wonders based on her observations.

Although this type of reasoning is especially salient in science, curiosity can manifest in many different types of information seeking in response to uncertainty, and is similar to critical thinking in other domains of knowledge and to active learning and problem solving more generally ( Gopnik, 2012 ; Klahr et al., 2013 ; Saylor and Ganea, 2018 ). The development of scientific thinking begins as the senses develop and begin providing information about the world ( Inhelder and Piaget, 1958 ; Gopnik et al., 1999 ). When they are not actively discouraged, children need no instruction to ask questions and explore, and the information they get often leads to further information seeking. In fact, observational research suggests that children can ask questions at the rate of more than 100 per hour ( Chouinard et al., 2007 )! Although the adults in a child’s life might tire of what seems like relentless questioning ( Turgeon, 2015 ), even young children can modify their beliefs and learn from the information they receive ( Ronfard et al., 2018 ). More generally, children seek to understand their world through active exploration, especially in response to recognizing a gap in their understanding ( Schulz and Bonawitz, 2007 ). The active choice of what to learn, driven by curiosity, can provide motivation and meaning to information and instill a lasting positive approach to learning in formal educational contexts.

How Does Curiosity Develop and Support Scientific Thinking?

There are several mechanisms through which children’s curiosity can support the development and persistence of scientific thinking. Three of these are discussed below, in sequence: that curiosity can (1) motivate information-seeking behavior, which leads to (2) question-asking and other information-seeking behaviors, which can (3) activate related previous knowledge and support deeper learning. Although we discuss these as independent, consecutive steps for the sake of clarity, it is much more likely that curiosity, question asking and information seeking, and cognitive processing of information and learning are all interrelated processes that support each other ( Oudeyer et al., 2016 ). For example, information seeking that is not a result of curiosity can lead to new questions, and as previous knowledge is activated it may influence the ways in which a child seeks information.

Curiosity as a Motivation for Information Seeking

Young children’s learning is driven by exploration to make sense of the world around them (e.g., Piaget, 1926 ). This exploration can result from curiosity ( Loewenstein, 1994 ; Jirout and Klahr, 2012 ) and lead to active engagement in learning ( Saylor and Ganea, 2018 ). In the example given previously, the child sees that some butterflies have open wings and some have closed wings, and may be uncertain about why, leading to more careful observations that provide potential for learning. Several studies demonstrate that the presence of uncertainty or ambiguity leads to higher engagement ( Howard-Jones and Demetriou, 2009 ) and more exploration and information seeking ( Berlyne, 1954 ; Lowry and Johnson, 1981 ; Loewenstein, 1994 ; Litman et al., 2005 ; Jirout and Klahr, 2012 ). For example, when children are shown ambiguous demonstrations for how a novel toy works, they prefer and play longer with that toy than with a new toy that was demonstrated without ambiguity ( Schulz and Bonawitz, 2007 ). Similar to ambiguity, surprising or unexpected observations can create uncertainty and lead to curiosity-driven questions or explanations through adult–child conversations ( Frazier et al., 2009 ; Danovitch and Mills, 2018 ; Jipson et al., 2018 ). This curiosity can promote lasting effects; Shah et al. (2018) show that young children’s curiosity, reported by parents at the start of kindergarten, relates to academic school readiness. In one of the few longitudinal studies including curiosity, research shows that parents’ promotion of curiosity early in childhood leads to science intrinsic motivation years later and science achievement in high school ( Gottfried et al., 2016 ). More generally, curiosity can provide a remedy to boredom, giving children a goal to direct their behavior and the motivation to act on their curiosity ( Litman and Silvia, 2006 ).

Curiosity as Support for Directing Information-Seeking Behavior

Gopnik et al. (2015) suggest that adults are efficient in their attention allocation, developed through extensive experience, but this attentional control comes at the cost of missing much of what is going on around them unrelated to their goals. Children have less experience and skill in focusing their attention, and more exploration-oriented goals, resulting in more open-ended exploratory behavior but also more distraction. Curiosity can help focus children’s attention on the specific information being sought (e.g., Legare, 2014 ). For example, when 7–9-year-old children completed a discovery-learning task in a museum, curiosity was related to more efficient learning-more curious children were quicker and learned more from similar exploration than less-curious children ( van Schijndel et al., 2018 ). Although children are quite capable of using questions to express curiosity and request specific information ( Berlyne, 1954 ; Chin and Osborne, 2010 ; Jirout and Zimmerman, 2015 ; Kidd and Hayden, 2015 ; Luce and Hsi, 2015 ), these skills can and should be strategically supported, as question asking plays a fundamental role in science and is important to develop ( Chouinard et al., 2007 ; Dewey, 1910 ; National Governors Association, 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993 ; among others). Indeed, the National Resource Council (2012) National Science Education Standards include question asking as the first of eight scientific and engineering practices that span all grade levels and content areas.

Children are proficient in requesting information from quite early ages ( Ronfard et al., 2018 ). Yet, there are limitations to children’s question asking; it can be “inefficient.” For example, to identify a target object from an array, young children often ask confirmation questions or make guesses rather than using more efficient “constraint-seeking” questions ( Mills et al., 2010 ; Ruggeri and Lombrozo, 2015 ). However, this behavior is observed in highly structured problem-solving tasks, during which children likely are not very curious. In fact, if the environment contains other things that children are curious about, it could be more efficient to use a simplistic strategy, freeing up cognitive resources for the true target of their curiosity. More research is needed to better understand children’s use of curiosity-driven questioning behavior as well as exploration, but naturalistic observations show that children do ask questions spontaneously to gain information, and that their questions (and follow-up questions) are effective in obtaining desired information ( Nelson et al., 2004 ; Kelemen et al., 2005 ; Chouinard et al., 2007 ).

Curiosity as Support for Deeper Learning

Returning to the definition of curiosity as information seeking to address knowledge gaps, becoming curious-by definition-involves the activation of previous knowledge, which enhances learning ( VanLehn et al., 1992 ; Conati and Carenini, 2001 ). The active learning that results from curiosity-driven information seeking involves meaningful cognitive engagement and constructive processing that can support deeper learning ( Bonwell and Eison, 1991 ; King, 1994 ; Loyens and Gijbels, 2008 ). The constructive process of seeking information to generate new thinking or new knowledge in response to curiosity is a more effective means of learning than simply receiving information ( Chi and Wylie, 2014 ). Even if information is simply given to a child as a result of their asking a question, the mere process of recognizing the gap in one’s knowledge to have a question activates relevant previous knowledge and leads to more effective storage of the new information within a meaningful mental representation; the generation of the question is a constructive process in itself. Further, learning more about a topic allows children to better recognize their related knowledge and information gaps ( Danovitch et al., 2019 ). This metacognitive reasoning supports learning through the processes of activating, integrating, and inferring involved in the constructive nature of curiosity-drive information seeking ( Chi and Wylie, 2014 ). Consistent with this theory, Lamnina and Chase (2019) showed that higher curiosity, which increased with the amount of uncertainty in a task, related to greater transfer of middle school students’ learning about specific science topics.

Promoting Curiosity in Young Children

Curiosity is rated by early childhood educators as “very important” or “essential” for school readiness and considered to be even more important than discrete academic skills like counting and knowing the alphabet ( Heaviside et al., 1993 ; West et al., 1993 ), behind only physical health and communication skills in importance ( Harradine and Clifford, 1996 ). Engel (2011 , 2013) finds that curiosity declines with development and suggests that understanding how to promote or at least sustain it is important. Although children’s curiosity is considered a natural characteristic that is present at birth, interactions with and responses from others can likely influence curiosity, both at a specific moment and context and as a more stable disposition ( Jirout et al., 2018 ). For example, previous work suggests that curiosity can be promoted by encouraging children to feel comfortable with and explore uncertainty ( Jirout et al., 2018 ); experiences that create uncertainty lead to higher levels of curious behavior (e.g., Bonawitz et al., 2011 ; Engel and Labella, 2011 ; Gordon et al., 2015 ).

One strategy for promoting curiosity is through classroom climate; children should feel safe and be encouraged to be curious and exploration and questions should be valued ( Pianta et al., 2008 ). This is accomplished by de-emphasizing being “right” or all-knowing, and instead embracing uncertainty and gaps in one’s own knowledge as opportunities to learn. Another strategy to promote curiosity is to provide support for the information-seeking behaviors that children use to act on their curiosity. There are several specific strategies that may promote children’s curiosity (see Jirout et al., 2018 , for additional strategies), including:

• 1. Encourage and provide opportunities for children to explore and “figure out,” emphasizing the value of the process (exploration) over the outcome (new knowledge or skills). Children cannot explore if opportunities are not provided to them, and they will not ask questions if they do not feel that their questions are welcomed. Even if opportunities and encouragement are provided, the fear of being wrong can keep children from trying to learn new things ( Martin and Marsh, 2003 ; Martin, 2011 ). Active efforts to discover or “figure out” are more effective at supporting learning than simply telling children something or having them practice learned procedures ( Schwartz and Martin, 2004 ). Children can explore when they have guidance and support to engage in think-aloud problem solving, instead of being told what to try or getting questions answered directly ( Chi et al., 1994 ).
• 2. Model curiosity for children, allowing them to see that others have things that they do not know and want to learn about, and that others also enjoy information-seeking activities like asking questions and researching information. Technology makes information seeking easier than it has ever been. For example, children are growing up surrounded by internet-connected devices (more than 8 per capita in 2018), and asking questions is reported to be one of the most frequent uses of smart speakers ( NPR-Edison Research Spring, 2019 ). Observing others seeking information as a normal routine can encourage children’s own question asking ( McDonald, 1992 ).
• 3. Children spontaneously ask questions, but adults can encourage deeper questioning by using explicit prompts and then supporting children to generate questions ( King, 1994 ; Rosenshine et al., 1996 ). This is different from asking “Do you have any questions?,” which may elicit a simple “yes” or “no” response from the child. Instead, asking, “What questions do you have?” is more likely to provide a cue for children to practice analyzing what they do not know and generating questions. The ability to evaluate one’s knowledge develops through practice, and scaffolding this process by helping children recognize questions to ask can effectively support development ( Kuhn and Pearsall, 2000 ; Chin and Brown, 2002 ).
• 4. Other methods to encourage curiosity include promoting and reinforcing children’s thinking about alternative ideas, which could also support creativity. Part of being curious is recognizing questions that can be asked, and if children understand that there are often multiple solutions or ways to do something they will be more likely to explore to learn “ how we know and why we believe; e.g., to expose science as a way of knowing” ( Duschl and Osborne, 2002 , p. 40). Children who learn to “think outside the box” will question what they and others know and better understand the dynamic nature of knowledge, supporting a curious mindset ( Duschl and Osborne, 2002 ).

Although positive interactions can promote and sustain curiosity in young children, curiosity can also be suppressed or discouraged through interactions that emphasize performance or a focus on explicit instruction ( Martin and Marsh, 2003 ; Martin, 2011 ; Hulme et al., 2013 ). Performance goals, which are goals that are focused on demonstrating the attainment of a skill, can lead to lower curiosity to avoid distraction or risk to achieving the goal ( Hulme et al., 2013 ). Mastery goals, which focus on understanding and the learning process, support learning for its own sake ( Ames, 1993 ). When children are older and attend school, they experience expectations that prioritize performance metrics over academic and intellectual exploration, such as through tests and state-standardized assessments, which discourages curiosity ( Engel, 2011 ; Jirout et al., 2018 ). In my own recent research, we observed a positive association between teachers’ use of mastery-focused language and their use of curiosity-promoting instructional practices in preschool math and science lessons ( Jirout and Vitiello, 2019 ). Among 5th graders, student ratings of teacher emphasis on standardized testing was associated with lower observed curiosity-promotion by teachers ( Jirout and Vitiello, 2019 ). It is likely that learning orientations influence children’s curiosity even before children begin formal schooling, and de-emphasizing performance is a way to support curiosity.

In summary, focusing on the process of “figuring out” something children do not know, modeling and explicitly prompting exploration and question asking, and supporting metacognitive and creative thinking are all ways to promote curiosity and support effective cognitive engagement during learning. These methods are consistent with inquiry-based and active learning, which both are grounded in constructivism and information gaps similar to the current operationalization of curiosity ( Jirout and Klahr, 2012 ; Saylor and Ganea, 2018 ; van Schijndel et al., 2018 ). Emphasizing performance, such as academic climates focused on teaching rote procedures and doing things the “correct” way to get the right answer, can suppress or discourage curiosity. Instead, creating a supportive learning climate and responding positively to curiosity are likely to further reinforce children’s information seeking, and to sustain their curiosity so that it can support scientific thinking and learning.

Conclusion: a Call for Research

In this article, I describe evidence from the limited existing research showing that curiosity is important and relates to science learning, and I suggest several mechanisms through which curiosity can support science learning. The general perspective presented here is that science learning can and should be supported by promoting curiosity, and I provide suggestions for promoting (and avoiding the suppression of) curiosity in early childhood. However, much more research is needed to address the complex challenge of educational applications of this work. Specifically, the suggested mechanisms through which curiosity promotes learning need to be studied to tease apart questions of directionality, the influence of related factors such as interest, the impact of context and learning domain on these relations, and the role of individual differences. Both the influence of curiosity on learning and effective ways to promote it likely change in interesting and important ways across development, and research is needed to understand this development-especially through studying change in individuals over time. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that learning does not happen in isolation, and one’s culture and environment have important roles in shaping one’s development. Thus, application of research on curiosity and science learning must include studies of the influence of social factors such as socioeconomic status and contexts, the influence of peers, teachers, parents, and others in children’s environments, and the many ways that culture may play a role, both in the broad values and beliefs instilled in children and the adults interacting with them, and in the influences of behavior expectations and norms. For example, parents across cultures might respond differently to children’s questions, so cross-cultural differences in questions likely indicate something other than differences in curiosity ( Ünlütabak et al., 2019 ). Although curiosity likely promotes science learning across cultures and contexts, the ways in which it does so and effective methods of promoting it may differ, which is an important area for future research to explore. Despite the benefits I present, curiosity seems to be rare or even absent from formal learning contexts ( Engel, 2013 ), even as children show curiosity about things outside of school ( Post and Walma van der Molen, 2018 ). Efforts to promote science learning should focus on the exciting potential for curiosity in supporting children’s learning, as promoting young children’s curiosity in science can start children on a positive trajectory for later learning.

Ethics Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) and/or minor(s)’ legal guardian/next of kin publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author Contributions

JJ conceived of the manuscript topic and wrote the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding. This publication was made possible through the support of grants from the John Templeton Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, and the Center for Curriculum Redesign. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation or other funders.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ames C. (1993). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. J. Educ. Psychol. 84 261–271. 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berlyne D. E. (1954). An experimental study of human curiosity. Br. J. Psychol. 45 256–265. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1954.tb01253.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonawitz E., Shafto P., Gweon H., Goodman N. D., Spelke E., Schulz L. (2011). The double-edged sword of pedagogy: instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition 120 322–330. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.001 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonwell C. C., Eison J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Washington, DC: The George Washington University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chi M. T. H., Leeuw N. D., Chiu M.-H., Lavancher C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cogn. Sci. 18 439–477. 10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chi M. T. H., Wylie R. (2014). The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educ. Psychol. 49 219–243. 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chin C., Brown D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: a meaningful aspect of learning in science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24 521–549. 10.1080/09500690110095249 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chin C., Osborne J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’. Questions: case studies in science classrooms. J. Learn. Sci. 19 230–284. 10.1080/10508400903530036 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chouinard M. M., Harris P. L., Maratsos M. P. (2007). Children’s questions: a mechanism for cognitive development. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 72 i–129. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conati C., Carenini G. (2001). “ Generating tailored examples to support learning via self-explanation ,” in Proceedings of IJCAI’01, 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Seattle, WA, 1301–1306. [ Google Scholar ]
• Danovitch J. H., Fisher M., Schroder H., Hambrick D. Z., Moser J. (2019). Intelligence and neurophysiological markers of error monitoring relate to Children’s intellectual humility. Child Dev. 90 924–939. 10.1111/cdev.12960 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danovitch J. H., Mills C. M. (2018). “ Understanding when and how explanation promotes exploration ,” in Active Learning from Infancy to Childhood: Social Motivation, Cognition, and Linguistic Mechanisms , eds Saylor M. M., Ganea P. A. (Berlin: Springer; ), 95–112. 10.1007/978-3-319-77182-3_6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey J. (1910). How We Think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company; 10.1037/10903-000 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duschl R. A., Osborne J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Stud. Sci. Educ. 38 39–72. 10.1080/03057260208560187 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duschl R. A., Schweingruber H. A., Shouse A. W. (eds) (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 10.17226/11625 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engel S. (2011). Children’s need to know: curiosity in schools. Harv. Educ. Rev. 81 625–645. 10.17763/haer.81.4.h054131316473115 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engel S. (2013). The Case for CURIOSITY. Educ. Leadersh. 70 36–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Engel S., Labella M. (2011). Encouraging exploration: the effects of teaching behavior on student expressions of curiosity, as cited in Engel, S. (2011). Children’s Need to Know: curiosity in Schools. Harv. Educ. Rev. 81 625–645. 10.17763/haer.81.4.h054131316473115 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frazier B. N., Gelman S. A., Wellman H. M. (2009). Preschoolers’ search for explanatory information within adult–child conversation. Child Dev. 80 1592–1611. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01356.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• French L. A., Woodring S. D., Woodring S. D. (2013). Science Education in the Early Years. Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children. Available online at: http://www.taylorfrancis.com/ (accessed February 29, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Gopnik A. (2012). Scientific thinking in young children: theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science 337 1623–1627. 10.1126/science.1223416 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gopnik A., Griffiths T. L., Lucas C. G. (2015). When younger learners can be better (or at least more open-minded) than older ones. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24 87–92. 10.1177/0963721414556653 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gopnik A., Meltzoff A. N., Kuhl P. K. (1999). The Scientist in the Crib: Minds, Brains, and How Children Learn. New York, NY: William Morrow & Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon G., Breazeal C., Engel S. (2015). Can children catch curiosity from a social robot? Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , New York, NY, 91–98. 10.1145/2696454.2696469 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfried A. E., Preston K. S. J., Gottfried A. W., Oliver P. H., Delany D. E., Ibrahim S. M. (2016). Pathways from parental stimulation of children’s curiosity to high school science course accomplishments and science career interest and skill. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38 1972–1995. 10.1080/09500693.2016.1220690 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harradine C. C., Clifford R. M. (1996). When are children ready for kindergarten? Views of families, kindergarten teachers, and child care providers. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association , New York, NY. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howard-Jones P. A., Demetriou S. (2009). Uncertainty and engagement with learning games. Inst. Sci. 37 519–536. 10.1007/s11251-008-9073-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heaviside S., Farris E., Carpenter J. M. (1993). Public School Kindergarten Teachers’ Views on Children’s Readiness for School. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hulme E., Green D. T., Ladd K. S. (2013). Fostering student engagement by cultivating curiosity: fostering student engagement by cultivating curiosity. New Dir. Stud. Serv. 2013 53–64. 10.1002/ss.20060 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Inhelder B., Piaget J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence: An Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jipson J. L., Labotka D., Callanan M. A., Gelman S. A. (2018). “ How conversations with parents may help children learn to separate the sheep from the goats (and the Robots) ,” in Active Learning from Infancy to Childhood: Social Motivation, Cognition, and Linguistic Mechanisms , eds Saylor M. M., Ganea P. A. (Berlin: Springer; ), 189–212. 10.1007/978-3-319-77182-3_11 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jirout J., Klahr D. (2012). Children’s scientific curiosity: in search of an operational definition of an elusive concept. Dev. Rev. 32 125–160. 10.1016/j.dr.2012.04.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jirout J., Vitiello V. (2019). “ uriosity in the classroom through supportive instruction. Paper Presented at the SRCD Biennial Meeting , Baltimore, MD. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jirout J., Vitiello V., Zumbrunn S. (2018). “ Curiosity in schools ,” in The New Science of Curiosity , ed. Gordon G. (Hauppauge, NY: Nova; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Jirout J., Zimmerman C. (2015). “ Development of science process skills in the early childhood years ,” in Research in Early Childhood Science Education , eds Cabe Trundle K., Saçkes M. (Berlin: Springer; ), 143–165. 10.1007/978-94-017-9505-0_7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelemen D., Callanan M. A., Casler K., Pérez-Granados D. R. (2005). Why things happen: teleological explanation in parent-child conversations. Dev. Psychol. 41 251–264. 10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.251 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kidd C., Hayden B. Y. (2015). The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron 88 449–460. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. Am. Educ. Res. J. 31 338–368. 10.2307/1163313 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klahr D., Matlen B., Jirout J. (2013). “ Children as scientific thinkers ,” in Handbook of the Psychology of Science , eds Feist G., Gorman M. (New York, NY: Springer; ), 223–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn D. (2002). “ What is scientific thinking, and how does it develop? ” in Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development , ed. Goswami U. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.), 371–393. 10.1002/9780470996652.ch17 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn D., Pearsall S. (2000). Developmental Origins of Scientific Thinking. J. Cogn. Dev. 1 113–129. 10.1207/S15327647JCD0101N_11 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamnina M., Chase C. C. (2019). Developing a thirst for knowledge: how uncertainty in the classroom influences curiosity, affect, learning, and transfer. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 59 : 101785 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101785 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Legare C. H. (2014). The contributions of explanation and exploration to children’s scientific reasoning. Child Dev. Perspect. 8 101–106. 10.1111/cdep.12070 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Litman J., Hutchins T., Russon R. (2005). Epistemic curiosity, feeling-of-knowing, and exploratory behaviour. Cogn. Emot. 19 559–582. 10.1080/02699930441000427 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Litman J. A., Silvia P. J. (2006). The latent structure of trait curiosity: evidence for interest and deprivation curiosity dimensions. J. Pers. Assess. 86 318–328. 10.1207/s15327752jpa8603_07 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loewenstein G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: a review and reinterpretation. Psychol. Bull. 116 75–98. 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lowry N., Johnson D. W. (1981). Effects of controversy on epistemic curiosity, achievement, and attitudes. J. Soc. Psychol. 115 31–43. 10.1080/00224545.1981.9711985 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loyens S. M., Gijbels D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: introducing a multi-directional approach. Inst. Sci. 36 351–357. 10.1007/s11251-008-9059-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luce M. R., Hsi S. (2015). Science-relevant curiosity expression and interest in science: an exploratory study: CURIOSITY AND SCIENCE INTEREST. Sci. Educ. 99 70–97. 10.1002/sce.21144 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin A. J. (2011). Courage in the classroom: exploring a new framework predicting academic performance and engagement. Sch. Psychol. Q. 26 145–160. 10.1037/a0023020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin A. J., Marsh H. W. (2003). Fear of Failure: Friend or Foe? Aust. Psychol. 38 31–38. 10.1080/00050060310001706997 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald J. P. (1992). Teaching: Making Sense of an Uncertain Craft. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Metz K. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cogn. Instr. 22 219–290. 10.1207/s1532690xci2202_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills C. M., Legare C. H., Bills M., Mejias C. (2010). Preschoolers use questions as a tool to acquire knowledge from different sources. J. Cogn. Dev. 11 533–560. 10.1080/15248372.2010.516419 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris B. J., Croker S., Masnick A., Zimmerman C. (2012). “ The emergence of scientific reasoning ,” in Current Topics in Children’s Learning and Cognition , eds Kloos H., Morris B. J., Amaral J. L. (Rijeka: IntechOpen; ). 10.5772/53885 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Governors Association (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Resource Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson D. G. K., Chan L. E., Holt M. B. (2004). When Children Ask, “What Is It? “What Do They Want to Know About Artifacts? Psychol. Sci. 15 384–389. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00689.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NPR-Edison Research Spring (2019). The Smart Audio Report. Available online at: https://www.nationalpublicmedia.com/uploads/2019/10/The_Smart_Audio_Report_Spring_2019.pdf (accessed February 23, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• Oudeyer P.-Y., Gottlieb J., Lopes M. (2016). Intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and learning: theory and applications in educational technologies. Prog. Brain Res. 229 257–284. 10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.05.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piaget J. (1926). The Thought and Language of the Child. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pianta R. C., La Paro K. M., Hamre B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring SystemTM: Manual K-3. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Post T., Walma van der Molen J. H. (2018). Do children express curiosity at school? Exploring children’s experiences of curiosity inside and outside the school context. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 18 60–71. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.03.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ronfard S., Zambrana I. M., Hermansen T. K., Kelemen D. (2018). Question-asking in childhood: a review of the literature and a framework for understanding its development. Dev. Rev. 49 101–120. 10.1016/j.dr.2018.05.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenshine B., Meister C., Chapman S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: a review of the intervention studies. Rev. Educ. Res. 66 181–221. 10.2307/1170607 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruggeri A., Lombrozo T. (2015). Children adapt their questions to achieve efficient search. Cognition 143 203–216. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saylor M. M., Ganea P. A. (eds) (2018). Active Learning from Infancy to Childhood: Social Motivation, Cognition, and Linguistic Mechanisms. Berlin: Springer; 10.1007/978-3-319-77182-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulz L. E., Bonawitz E. B. (2007). Serious fun: preschoolers engage in more exploratory play when evidence is confounded. Dev. Psychol. 43 1045–1050. 10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1045 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz D. L., Martin T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: the hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cogn. Inst. 22 129–184. 10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shah P. E., Weeks H. M., Richards B., Kaciroti N. (2018). Early childhood curiosity and kindergarten reading and math academic achievement. Pediatr. Res. 84 380–386. 10.1038/s41390-018-0039-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turgeon W. C. (2015). The art and danger of the question: its place within philosophy for children and its philosophical history. Mind Cult. Act. 22 284–298. 10.1080/10749039.2015.1079919 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ünlütabak B., Nicolopoulou A., Aksu-Koç A. (2019). Questions asked by Turkish preschoolers from middle-SES and low-SES families. Cogn. Dev. 52 : 100802 10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100802 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Schijndel T. J. P., Jansen B. R. J., Raijmakers M. E. J. (2018). Do individual differences in children’s curiosity relate to their inquiry-based learning? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 40 996–1015. 10.1080/09500693.2018.1460772 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• VanLehn K., Jones R. M., Chi M. T. H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. J. Learn. Sci. 2 1–59. 10.1207/s15327809jls0201_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West J., Hausken E. G., Collins M. (1993). Readiness for Kindergarten: Parent and Teacher Beliefs. Statistics in Brief. Available online at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED363429 (accessed February 29, 2020). [ Google Scholar ]

Multiple goals, multiple solutions, plenty of second-guessing and revising − here’s how science really works

Professor of Philosophy, University of Montana

Disclosure statement

Soazig Le Bihan receives funding from the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center at the University of Montana.

University of Montana provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

A man in a lab coat bends under a dim light, his strained eyes riveted onto a microscope. He’s powered only by caffeine and anticipation.

This solitary scientist will stay on task until he unveils the truth about the cause of the dangerous disease quickly spreading through his vulnerable city. Time is short, the stakes are high, and only he can save everyone. …

That kind of romanticized picture of science was standard for a long time. But it’s as far from actual scientific practice as a movie’s choreographed martial arts battle is from a real fistfight.

For most of the 20th century, philosophers of science like me maintained somewhat idealistic claims about what good science looks like. Over the past few decades, however, many of us have revised our views to better mirror actual scientific practice .

An update on what to expect from actual science is overdue. I often worry that when the public holds science to unrealistic standards, any scientific claim failing to live up to them arouses suspicion. While public trust is globally strong and has been for decades, it has been eroding. In November 2023, Americans’ trust in scientists was 14 points lower than it had been just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with its flurry of confusing and sometimes contradictory science-related messages.

When people’s expectations are not met about how science works, they may blame scientists. But modifying our expectations might be more useful. Here are three updates I think can help people better understand how science actually works. Hopefully, a better understanding of actual scientific practice will also shore up people’s trust in the process.

The many faces of scientific research

First, science is a complex endeavor involving multiple goals and associated activities.

Some scientists search for the causes underlying some observable effect, such as a decimated pine forest or the Earth’s global surface temperature increase .

Others may investigate the what rather than the why of things. For example, ecologists build models to estimate gray wolf abundance in Montana . Spotting predators is incredibly challenging. Counting all of them is impractical. Abundance models are neither complete nor 100% accurate – they offer estimates deemed good enough to set harvesting quotas. Perfect scientific models are just not in the cards .

Beyond the what and the why, scientists may focus on the how. For instance, the lives of people living with chronic illnesses can be improved by research on strategies for managing disease – to mitigate symptoms and improve function, even if the true causes of their disorders largely elude current medicine.

It’s understandable that some patients may grow frustrated or distrustful of medical providers unable to give clear answers about what causes their ailment. But it’s important to grasp that lots of scientific research focuses on how to effectively intervene in the world to reach some specific goals.

Simplistic views represent science as solely focused on providing causal explanations for the various phenomena we observe in this world. The truth is that scientists tackle all kinds of problems, which are best solved using different strategies and approaches and only sometimes involve full-fledged explanations.

Complex problems call for complex solutions

The second aspect of scientific practice worth underscoring is that, because scientists tackle complex problems, they don’t typically offer one unique, complete and perfect answer. Instead they consider multiple, partial and possibly conflicting solutions.

Scientific modeling strategies illustrate this point well. Scientific models typically are partial, simplified and sometimes deliberately unrealistic representations of a system of interest. Models can be physical, conceptual or mathematical. The critical point is that they represent target systems in ways that are useful in particular contexts of inquiry. Interestingly, considering multiple possible models is often the best strategy to tackle complex problems.

Scientists consider multiple models of biodiversity , atomic nuclei or climate change . Returning to wolf abundance estimates, multiple models can also fit the bill. Such models rely on various types of data, including acoustic surveys of wolf howls, genetic methods that use fecal samples from wolves, wolf sightings and photographic evidence, aerial surveys, snow track surveys and more.

Weighing the pros and cons of various possible solutions to the problem of interest is part and parcel of the scientific process. Interestingly, in some cases, using multiple conflicting models allows for better predictions than trying to unify all the models into one.

The public may be surprised and possibly suspicious when scientists push forward multiple models that rely on conflicting assumptions and make different predictions. People often think “real science” should provide definite, complete and foolproof answers to their questions. But given various limitations and the world’s complexity, keeping multiple perspectives in play is most often the best way for scientists to reach their goals and solve the problems at hand.

Science as a collective, contrarian endeavor

Finally, science is a collective endeavor, where healthy disagreement is a feature, not a bug.

The romanticized version of science pictures scientists working in isolation and establishing absolute truths. Instead, science is a social and contrarian process in which the community’s scrutiny ensures we have the best available knowledge. “Best available” does not mean “definitive,” but the best we have until we find out how to improve it. Science almost always allows for disagreements among experts.

Controversies are core to how science works at its best and are as old as Western science itself. In the 1600s, Descartes and Leibniz fought over how to best characterize the laws of dynamics and the nature of motion.

The long history of atomism provides a valuable perspective on how science is an intricate and winding process rather than a fast-delivery system of results set in stone. As Jean Baptiste Perrin conducted his 1908 experiments that seemingly settled all discussion regarding the existence of atoms and molecules, the questions of the atom’s properties were about to become the topic of decades of controversies with the birth of quantum physics.

The nature and structure of fundamental particles and associated fields have been the subject of scientific research for more than a century. Lively academic discussions abound concerning the difficult interpretation of quantum mechanics , the challenging unification of quantum physics and relativity , and the existence of the Higgs boson , among others.

Distrusting researchers for having healthy scientific disagreements is largely misguided.

A very human practice

To be clear, science is dysfunctional in some respects and contexts. Current institutions have incentives for counterproductive practices, including maximizing publication numbers . Like any human endeavor, science includes people with bad intent, including some trying to discredit legitimate scientific research . Finally, science is sometimes inappropriately influenced by various values in problematic ways.

These are all important considerations when evaluating the trustworthiness of particular scientific claims and recommendations. However, it is unfair, sometimes dangerous, to mistrust science for doing what it does at its best. Science is a multifaceted endeavor focused on solving complex problems that typically just don’t have simple solutions. Communities of experts scrutinize those solutions in hopes of providing the best available approach to tackling the problems of interest.

Science is also a fallible and collective process. Ignoring the realities of that process and holding science up to unrealistic standards may result in the public calling science out and losing trust in its reliability for the wrong reasons.

• Philosophy of science
• Scientific research
• Science myths
• Trust in science

Service Delivery Consultant

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

Educational Designer

3. Critical Thinking in Science: How to Foster Scientific Reasoning Skills

Critical thinking in science is important largely because a lot of students have developed expectations about science that can prove to be counter-productive. 

After various experiences — both in school and out — students often perceive science to be primarily about learning “authoritative” content knowledge: this is how the solar system works; that is how diffusion works; this is the right answer and that is not. 

This perception allows little room for critical thinking in science, in spite of the fact that argument, reasoning, and critical thinking lie at the very core of scientific practice.

Argument, reasoning, and critical thinking lie at the very core of scientific practice.

In this article, we outline two of the best approaches to be most effective in fostering scientific reasoning. Both try to put students in a scientist’s frame of mind more than is typical in science education:

• First, we look at  small-group inquiry , where students formulate questions and investigate them in small groups. This approach is geared more toward younger students but has applications at higher levels too.
• We also look  science   labs . Too often, science labs too often involve students simply following recipes or replicating standard results. Here, we offer tips to turn labs into spaces for independent inquiry and scientific reasoning.

I. Critical Thinking in Science and Scientific Inquiry

Even very young students can “think scientifically” under the right instructional support. A series of experiments , for instance, established that preschoolers can make statistically valid inferences about unknown variables. Through observation they are also capable of distinguishing actions that cause certain outcomes from actions that don’t. These innate capacities, however, have to be developed for students to grow up into rigorous scientific critical thinkers. 

Even very young students can “think scientifically” under the right instructional support.

Although there are many techniques to get young children involved in scientific inquiry — encouraging them to ask and answer “why” questions, for instance — teachers can provide structured scientific inquiry experiences that are deeper than students can experience on their own. 

Goals for Teaching Critical Thinking Through Scientific Inquiry

When it comes to teaching critical thinking via science, the learning goals may vary, but students should learn that:

• Failure to agree is okay, as long as you have reasons for why you disagree about something.
• The logic of scientific inquiry is iterative. Scientists always have to consider how they might improve your methods next time. This includes addressing sources of uncertainty.
• Claims to knowledge usually require multiple lines of evidence and a “match” or “fit” between our explanations and the evidence we have.
• Collaboration, argument, and discussion are central features of scientific reasoning.
• Visualization, analysis, and presentation are central features of scientific reasoning.
• Overarching concepts in scientific practice — such as uncertainty, measurement, and meaningful experimental contrasts — manifest themselves somewhat differently in different scientific domains.

How to Teaching Critical Thinking in Science Via Inquiry

Sometimes we think of science education as being either a “direct” approach, where we tell students about a concept, or an “inquiry-based” approach, where students explore a concept themselves.  

But, especially, at the earliest grades, integrating both approaches can inform students of their options (i.e., generate and extend their ideas), while also letting students make decisions about what to do.

Like a lot of projects targeting critical thinking, limited classroom time is a challenge. Although the latest content standards, such as the Next Generation Science Standards , emphasize teaching scientific practices, many standardized tests still emphasize assessing scientific content knowledge.

The concept of uncertainty comes up in every scientific domain.

Creating a lesson that targets the right content is also an important aspect of developing authentic scientific experiences. It’s now more  widely acknowledged  that effective science instruction involves the interaction between domain-specific knowledge and domain-general knowledge, and that linking an inquiry experience to appropriate target content is vital.

For instance, the concept of uncertainty  comes up  in every scientific domain. But the sources of uncertainty coming from any given measurement vary tremendously by discipline. It requires content knowledge to know how to wisely apply the concept of uncertainty.

Tips and Challenges for teaching critical thinking in science

Teachers need to grapple with student misconceptions. Student intuition about how the world works — the way living things grow and behave, the way that objects fall and interact — often conflicts with scientific explanations. As part of the inquiry experience, teachers can help students to articulate these intuitions and revise them through argument and evidence.

Group composition is another challenge. Teachers will want to avoid situations where one member of the group will simply “take charge” of the decision-making, while other member(s) disengage. In some cases, grouping students by current ability level can make the group work more productive. 

Another approach is to establish group norms that help prevent unproductive group interactions. A third tactic is to have each group member learn an essential piece of the puzzle prior to the group work, so that each member is bringing something valuable to the table (which other group members don’t yet know).

It’s critical to ask students about how certain they are in their observations and explanations and what they could do better next time. When disagreements arise about what to do next or how to interpret evidence, the instructor should model good scientific practice by, for instance, getting students to think about what kind of evidence would help resolve the disagreement or whether there’s a compromise that might satisfy both groups.

The subjects of the inquiry experience and the tools at students’ disposal will depend upon the class and the grade level. Older students may be asked to create mathematical models, more sophisticated visualizations, and give fuller presentations of their results.

Lesson Plan Outline

This lesson plan takes a small-group inquiry approach to critical thinking in science. It asks students to collaboratively explore a scientific question, or perhaps a series of related questions, within a scientific domain.

Suppose students are exploring insect behavior. Groups may decide what questions to ask about insect behavior; how to observe, define, and record insect behavior; how to design an experiment that generates evidence related to their research questions; and how to interpret and present their results.

An in-depth inquiry experience usually takes place over the course of several classroom sessions, and includes classroom-wide instruction, small-group work, and potentially some individual work as well.

Students, especially younger students, will typically need some background knowledge that can inform more independent decision-making. So providing classroom-wide instruction and discussion before individual group work is a good idea.

For instance, Kathleen Metz had students observe insect behavior, explore the anatomy of insects, draw habitat maps, and collaboratively formulate (and categorize) research questions before students began to work more independently.

The subjects of a science inquiry experience can vary tremendously: local weather patterns, plant growth, pollution, bridge-building. The point is to engage students in multiple aspects of scientific practice: observing, formulating research questions, making predictions, gathering data, analyzing and interpreting data, refining and iterating the process.

As student groups take responsibility for their own investigation, teachers act as facilitators. They can circulate around the room, providing advice and guidance to individual groups. If classroom-wide misconceptions arise, they can pause group work to address those misconceptions directly and re-orient the class toward a more productive way of thinking.

Throughout the process, teachers can also ask questions like:

• What are your assumptions about what’s going on? How can you check your assumptions?
• Suppose that your results show X, what would you conclude?
• If you had to do the process over again, what would you change? Why?

II. Rethinking Science Labs

Beyond changing how students approach scientific inquiry, we also need to rethink science labs. After all, science lab activities are ubiquitous in science classrooms and they are a great opportunity to teach critical thinking skills.

Often, however, science labs are merely recipes that students follow to verify standard values (such as the force of acceleration due to gravity) or relationships between variables (such as the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration) known to the students beforehand. 

This approach does not usually involve critical thinking: students are not making many decisions during the process, and they do not reflect on what they’ve done except to see whether their experimental data matches the expected values.

With some small tweaks, however, science labs can involve more critical thinking. Science lab activities that give students not only the opportunity to design, analyze, and interpret the experiment, but re -design, re -analyze, and re -interpret the experiment provides ample opportunity for grappling with evidence and evidence-model relationships, particularly if students don’t know what answer they should be expecting beforehand.

Such activities improve scientific reasoning skills, such as: 

• Evaluating quantitative data
• Plausible scientific explanations for observed patterns

And also broader critical thinking skills, like:

• Comparing models to data, and comparing models to each other
• Thinking about what kind of evidence supports one model or another
• Being open to changing your beliefs based on evidence

Traditional science lab experiences bear little resemblance to actual scientific practice. Actual practice  involves  decision-making under uncertainty, trial-and-error, tweaking experimental methods over time, testing instruments, and resolving conflicts among different kinds of evidence. Traditional in-school science labs rarely involve these things.

Traditional science lab experiences bear little resemblance to actual scientific practice.

When teachers use science labs as opportunities to engage students in the kinds of dilemmas that scientists actually face during research, students make more decisions and exhibit more sophisticated reasoning.

In the lesson plan below, students are asked to evaluate two models of drag forces on a falling object. One model assumes that drag increases linearly with the velocity of the falling object. Another model assumes that drag increases quadratically (e.g., with the square of the velocity).  Students use a motion detector and computer software to create a plot of the position of a disposable paper coffee filter as it falls to the ground. Among other variables, students can vary the number of coffee filters they drop at once, the height at which they drop them, how they drop  them, and how they clean their data. This is an approach to scaffolding critical thinking: a way to get students to ask the right kinds of questions and think in the way that scientists tend to think.

Design an experiment to test which model best characterizes the motion of the coffee filters. 

Things to think about in your design:

• What are the relevant variables to control and which ones do you need to explore?
• What are some logistical issues associated with the data collection that may cause unnecessary variability (either random or systematic) or mistakes?
• How can you control or measure these?
• What ways can you graph your data and which ones will help you figure out which model better describes your data?

Discuss your design with other groups and modify as you see fit.

Initial data collection

Conduct a quick trial-run of your experiment so that you can evaluate your methods.

• Do your graphs provide evidence of which model is the best?
• What ways can you improve your methods, data, or graphs to make your case more convincing?
• Do you need to change how you’re collecting data?
• Do you need to take data at different regions?
• Do you just need more data?
• Do you need to reduce your uncertainty?

After this initial evaluation of your data and methods, conduct the desired improvements, changes, or additions and re-evaluate at the end.

In your lab notes, make sure to keep track of your progress and process as you go. As always, your final product is less important than how you get there.

How to Make Science Labs Run Smoothly

Managing student expectations . As with many other lesson plans that incorporate critical thinking, students are not used to having so much freedom. As with the example lesson plan above, it’s important to scaffold student decision-making by pointing out what decisions have to be made, especially as students are transitioning to this approach.

Supporting student reasoning . Another challenge is to provide guidance to student groups without telling them how to do something. Too much “telling” diminishes student decision-making, but not enough support may leave students simply not knowing what to do. 

There are several key strategies teachers can try out here: 

• Point out an issue with their data collection process without specifying exactly how to solve it.
• Ask a lab group how they would improve their approach.
• Ask two groups with conflicting results to compare their results, methods, and analyses.

Download our Teachers’ Guide

(please click here)

Sources and Resources

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2007). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy . Handbook of child psychology , Vol. 4. Wiley. A review of research on scientific thinking and experiments on teaching scientific thinking in the classroom.

Metz, K. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualizations of uncertainty in investigations of their own design . Cognition and Instruction 22(2). An example of a scientific inquiry experience for elementary school students.

The Next Generation Science Standards . The latest U.S. science content standards.

Concepts of Evidence A collection of important concepts related to evidence that cut across scientific disciplines.

Scienceblind A book about children’s science misconceptions and how to correct them.

Holmes, N. G., Keep, B., & Wieman, C. E. (2020). Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 16 (1), 010109. A research study on minimally altering traditional lab approaches to incorporate more critical thinking. The drag example was taken from this piece.

ISLE , led by E. Etkina.  A platform that helps teachers incorporate more critical thinking in physics labs.

Holmes, N. G., Wieman, C. E., & Bonn, D. A. (2015). Teaching critical thinking . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112 (36), 11199-11204. An approach to improving critical thinking and reflection in science labs. Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students’ conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science . Journal of College Science Teaching , 41 (4), 74-81. A large-scale research study on transforming chemistry labs to be more inquiry-based.

Privacy Overview

Masks Strongly Recommended but Not Required in Maryland, Starting Immediately

Due to the downward trend in respiratory viruses in Maryland, masking is no longer required but remains strongly recommended in Johns Hopkins Medicine clinical locations in Maryland. Read more .

• Vaccines  
• Masking Guidelines
• Visitor Guidelines  

The Power of Positive Thinking

Here’s heartwarming news: People with a family history of heart disease who also had a positive outlook were one-third less likely to have a heart attack or other cardiovascular event within five to 25 years than those with a more negative outlook.

That’s the finding from Johns Hopkins expert  Lisa R. Yanek, M.P.H. , and her colleagues. The finding held even in people with family history who had the most risk factors for coronary artery disease, and positive people from the general population were 13 percent less likely than their negative counterparts to have a heart attack or other coronary event.

Yanek and her team determined “positive” versus “negative” outlook using a survey tool that assesses a person’s cheerfulness, energy level, anxiety levels and satisfaction with health and overall life. But you don’t need a survey to assess your own positivity, says Yanek. “I think people tend to know how they are.”

Hope and Your Heart

The mechanism for the connection between health and positivity remains murky, but researchers suspect that people who are more positive may be better protected against the inflammatory damage of stress. Another possibility is that hope and positivity help people make better health and life decisions and focus more on long-term goals. Studies also find that negative emotions can weaken immune response.

What  is  clear, however, is that there is definitely a strong link between “positivity” and health. Additional studies have found that a positive attitude improves outcomes and life satisfaction across a spectrum of conditions—including traumatic brain injury,  stroke  and brain tumors.

Can You Boost Your Bright Side?

Although a positive personality is something we’re born with and not something we can inherently change, Yanek says, there are steps you can take to improve your outlook and reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease.

Simply smile more.

A University of Kansas study found that smiling—even fake smiling—reduces heart rate and blood pressure during stressful situations. So try a few minutes of YouTube humor therapy when you’re stomping your feet waiting in line or fuming over a work or family situation. It’s difficult not to smile while watching a favorite funny video.

Practice reframing.

Instead of stressing about a traffic jam, for instance, appreciate the fact that you can afford a car and get to spend a few extra minutes listening to music or the news, accepting that there is absolutely nothing you can do about the traffic.

Build resiliency.

Resiliency is the ability to adapt to stressful and/or negative situations and losses. Experts recommend these key ways to build yours:

• Maintain good relationships with family and friends.
• Accept that change is a part of life.
• Take action on problems rather than just hoping they disappear or waiting for them to resolve themselves. 

Definitions

Cardiovascular (car-dee-oh-vas-cue-ler) disease : Problems of the heart or blood vessels, often caused by atherosclerosis—the build-up of fat deposits in artery walls—and by high blood pressure, which can weaken blood vessels, encourage atherosclerosis and make arteries stiff. Heart valve disorders, heart failure and off-beat heart rhythms (called arrhythmias) are also types of cardiovascular disease.

Immune response : How your immune system recognizes and defends itself against bacteria, viruses, toxins and other harmful substances. A response can include anything from coughing and sneezing to an increase in white blood cells, which attack foreign substances.

Find a Doctor

Specializing In:

• Geriatric Psychiatry
• Cognitive Decline in Older Adults
• Memory Disorders
• Alzheimer's Disease (AD)
• Neurological Disease

Find a Treatment Center

• Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology
• Memory Disorders Center
• Memory and Alzheimers Treatment Center

Find Additional Treatment Centers at:

• Howard County Medical Center
• Sibley Memorial Hospital
• Suburban Hospital

Request an Appointment

Inside the Science of Memory

Memory: 5 Ways to Protect Your Brain Health

Does Higher Learning Combat Dementia?

Related Topics

• Age-Related Depression, Mood and Stress
• Maintaining a Healthy Mind as You Age

• Interesting
• Scholarships
• UGC-CARE Journals

The Art and Science of Critical Thinking in Research: A Guide to Academic Excellence

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill in research and academia that involves analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information in a systematic and logical manner. It is the process of objectively evaluating evidence, arguments, and ideas to arrive at well-reasoned conclusions or make informed decisions.

The art and science of critical thinking in research is a multifaceted and dynamic process that requires intellectual rigor, creativity, and an open mind.

In research, critical thinking is essential for developing research questions, designing research studies, collecting and analyzing data, and interpreting research findings. It allows researchers to evaluate the quality and validity of research studies, identify gaps in the literature, and make evidence-based decisions.

Critical thinking in research also involves being open to alternative viewpoints and being willing to revise one’s own conclusions based on new evidence. It requires intellectual humility and a willingness to challenge one’s own assumptions and biases.

Why Critical Thinking is Important in Research?

Critical thinking is important in research for the following reasons:

Rigor and accuracy

It helps researchers to approach their work with rigor and accuracy, ensuring that the research methods and findings are reliable and valid.

Evaluation of evidence

Critical thinking helps researchers to evaluate the evidence they encounter and determine its relevance and reliability to the research question or hypothesis.

Identification of biases and assumptions

Critical thinking helps research ers to identify their own biases and assumptions and those of others, which can influence the research process and findings.

Problem-solving

It helps researchers to identify and solve problems that may arise during the research process, such as inconsistencies in data or unexpected results.

Development of new ideas

Critical thinking can help researchers develop new ideas and theories based on their analysis of the evidence.

Communication

Critical thinking helps researchers to communicate their findings and ideas in a clear and logical manner, making it easier for others to understand and build on their work.

Therefore, critical thinking is essential for conducting rigorous and impactful research that can advance our understanding of the world around us.

It helps researchers to approach their work with a critical and objective perspective, evaluating evidence and developing insights that can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field.

How to develop critical thinking skills in research?

Developing critical thinking skills in research requires a specific set of strategies. Here are some ways to develop critical thinking skills in research:

Evaluate the credibility of sources

In research, it is important to evaluate the credibility of sources to determine if the information is reliable and valid. To develop your critical thinking skills, practice evaluating the sources you encounter and assessing their credibility.

Assess the quality of evidence

Critical thinking in research involves assessing the quality of evidence and determining if it supports the research question or hypothesis. Practice evaluating the quality of evidence and understanding how it impacts the research findings.

Consider alternative explanations

To develop critical thinking skills in research, practice considering alternative explanations for the findings. Evaluate the evidence and consider if there are other explanations that could account for the results.

Challenge assumptions

Critical thinking in research involves challenging assumptions and exploring alternative perspectives. Practice questioning assumptions and considering different viewpoints to develop your critical thinking skills.

Seek out feedback

Seek out feedback from colleagues, advisors, or peers on your research methods and findings. This can help you identify areas where you need to improve your critical thinking skills and provide valuable insights for your research.

Practice analyzing data

Critical thinking in research involves analyzing and interpreting data. Practice analyzing different types of data to develop your critical thinking skills.

Attend conferences and seminars

Attend conferences and seminars in your field to learn about the latest research and to engage in critical discussions with other researchers. This can help you develop your critical thinking skills and keep up-to-date with the latest research in your field.

By consistently practicing these strategies, you can develop your critical thinking skills in research and become a more effective and insightful researcher.

The Art and Science of Critical Thinking in Research

The art and science of critical thinking in research is a vital skill for academic excellence. Here’s a guide to academic excellence through the art and science of critical thinking in research:

Define the research problem

The first step in critical thinking is to define the research problem or question. This involves identifying the key concepts, understanding the context, and formulating a clear and concise research question or hypothesis. Clearly define the research question or problem you are trying to address. This will help you focus your thinking and avoid unnecessary distractions.

Conduct a comprehensive literature review

A thorough review of relevant literature is essential in critical thinking. It helps you understand the existing knowledge and research in the field, identify research gaps, and evaluate the quality and reliability of the evidence. It also allows you to identify different perspectives and theories related to the research problem.

Evaluate evidence and sources

Critical thinking requires careful evaluation of evidence and sources. This includes assessing the credibility, reliability, and validity of research studies, data sources, and information. It also involves identifying potential biases, limitations, and assumptions in the evidence and sources. Use reputable, peer-reviewed sources and critically analyze the evidence and arguments presented in those sources.

Analyze and synthesize information

Critical thinking involves analyzing and synthesizing information from various sources. This includes identifying patterns, trends, and relationships among different pieces of information. It also requires organizing and integrating information to develop a coherent and logical argument.

Question assumptions

Challenge your assumptions and biases. Be aware of your own biases and preconceived notions, and critically examine them to avoid potential bias in your research.

Evaluate arguments and reasoning

Critical thinking involves evaluating the strength and validity of arguments and reasoning. This includes identifying logical fallacies, evaluating the coherence and consistency of arguments, and assessing the evidence and support for arguments. It also involves considering alternative viewpoints and perspectives.

Apply critical thinking tools

Use critical thinking tools such as SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), mind maps, concept maps, and flowcharts to organize and analyze information in a structured and systematic manner.

Apply critical thinking skills in research design and methodology: Critical thinking is essential in research design and methodology. This includes making informed decisions about research approaches, sampling methods, data collection, and data analysis techniques. It also involves anticipating potential limitations and biases in the research design and methodology.

Consider multiple perspectives

Avoid tunnel vision by considering multiple perspectives and viewpoints on the issue at hand. This will help you gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic and make informed decisions based on a broader range of information.

Ask critical questions

Critical questions in research.

Some of the sample critical questions in the research are listed below.

1. What is the research question, and is it clearly defined?

2. What are the assumptions underlying the research question?

3. What is the methodology being used, and is it appropriate for the research organized

4. What are the limitations of the study, and how might they affect the results?

5. How representative is the sample being studied, and are there any biases in the selection process?

6. What are the potential sources of error or bias in the data collection process?

7. Are the statistical analyses used appropriate, and do they support the conclusions drawn from the data?

8. What are the implications of the research findings, and do they have practical significance?

9. Are there any ethical considerations that arise from the research, and have they been adequately addressed?

10. Are there any alternative explanations for the results, and have they been considered and ruled out?

Communicate effectively

Critical thinking requires effective communication skills to articulate and present research findings and arguments clearly and convincingly.

This includes writing clearly and concisely, using appropriate evidence and examples, and presenting information in a logical and organized manner. It also involves listening and responding critically to feedback and engaging in constructive discussions and debates.

Practice self-reflection

Critical thinking involves self-reflection and self-awareness.  Reflect on your own thinking and decision-making process throughout the research. It requires regularly evaluating your own biases, assumptions, and limitations in your thinking process. It also involves being mindful of your emotions and personal beliefs that may influence your critical thinking and decision-making.

Embrace creativity and open-mindedness

Critical thinking involves being open to new ideas, perspectives, and approaches. It requires creativity in generating and evaluating alternative solutions or interpretations.

It also involves being willing to revise your conclusions or change your research direction based on new information. Avoid confirmation bias and strive for objectivity in your research.

Seek feedback and engage in peer review

Critical thinking benefits from feedback and peer review. Seeking feedback from mentors, colleagues, or peer reviewers can help identify potential flaws or weaknesses in your research or arguments. Engaging in peer review also provides an opportunity to critically evaluate the work of others and learn from their perspectives.

By following these best practices and techniques, you can cultivate critical thinking skills that will enhance the quality and rigor of your research, leading to more successful outcomes.

Critical thinking is an essential component of research that enables researchers to evaluate information, identify biases, and draw valid conclusions.

It involves defining research problems, conducting literature reviews, evaluating evidence and sources, analyzing and synthesizing information, evaluating arguments and reasoning, applying critical thinking in research design and methodology, communicating effectively, embracing creativity and open-mindedness, practicing self-reflection, seeking feedback, and engaging in peer review.

By cultivating and applying critical thinking skills in research, you can enhance the quality and rigor of your work and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Remember to continuously practice and refine your critical thinking skills as they are valuable not only in research but also in various aspects of life. Happy researching!

• academic excellence
• Academic Research
• academic success
• critical thinking
• practical tips
• research skills

List of Research Topics in Environmental Engineering

Indo-russian joint research call for proposals 2024, list of phd and postdoc fellowships in india 2024, most popular, how to create graphical abstract, newly accepted scopus indexed journals june 2024, top 10 scopus indexed agronomy and crop science journals, indo-german research collaboration: joint call for proposals 2024, 10 trending ai tools for dynamic graph visualization, india-uk joint call for proposal: pioneering telecommunications research (dst-epsrc), top 100 journal publications in the world 2024, best for you, 24 best online plagiarism checker free – 2024, what is phd, popular posts, popular category.

• POSTDOC 317
• Interesting 257
• Journals 235
• Fellowship 133
• Research Methodology 102
• All Scopus Indexed Journals 93

Mail Subscription

iLovePhD is a research education website to know updated research-related information. It helps researchers to find top journals for publishing research articles and get an easy manual for research tools. The main aim of this website is to help Ph.D. scholars who are working in various domains to get more valuable ideas to carry out their research. Learn the current groundbreaking research activities around the world, love the process of getting a Ph.D.

Contact us: [email protected]

Google News

Copyright © 2024 iLovePhD. All rights reserved

• Artificial intelligence

What Do They Bring to the Table? Determining the Logical Thinking Skills of Students Beginning an Earth Science General Education Course

• Wright State University

Research output : Other contribution

In order to develop appropriate learning activities and to structure general education laboratory components to be as effective as possible in developing logical thinking skills specific to science and that promote the building of abstract science concepts, we must have a baseline for what logical thinking skills students bring to introductory science courses. To better understand the skill sets students bring to the table, seven hundred and fifty students in a large enrollment (~75-100 students per section) introductory Earth science course completed the Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT) instrument during their first laboratory class period. The GALT is a two-tier multiple-choice assessment that measures their abilities in six categories of logical thinking: conservation, controlling variables, and probabilistic, correlational, proportional, and combinational reasoning.

Students may take general education courses at any point in their academic careers. We found that there was no relationship between the students' GALT scores and the number of college credits completed at the time they were tested. Clearly, these students were not building their scientific logical-thinking skills in other college courses.

The GALT scores indicate that 31% of the students were concrete logical thinkers, 50% were transitional logical thinkers and 19% were abstract (formal) logical thinkers. On average, they scored lowest in proportional and correlational reasoning skills. Specific geoscience activities such as the comparison of maps of different scales and the comparison of the relative motion of different tectonic plates may build proportional reasoning skills. In addition, engaging students in inquiry-based science activities and allowing them to practice building hypotheses, collecting and analyzing data and presenting conclusions should help them build their abilities in correlational reasoning.

Disciplines

• Earth Sciences
• Environmental Sciences
• Physical Sciences and Mathematics

Other files and links

• Link to repository

T1 - What Do They Bring to the Table? Determining the Logical Thinking Skills of Students Beginning an Earth Science General Education Course

AU - Slattery, William

AU - Davis, Craig

AU - Teed, Rebecca

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - In order to develop appropriate learning activities and to structure general education laboratory components to be as effective as possible in developing logical thinking skills specific to science and that promote the building of abstract science concepts, we must have a baseline for what logical thinking skills students bring to introductory science courses. To better understand the skill sets students bring to the table, seven hundred and fifty students in a large enrollment (~75-100 students per section) introductory Earth science course completed the Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT) instrument during their first laboratory class period. The GALT is a two-tier multiple-choice assessment that measures their abilities in six categories of logical thinking: conservation, controlling variables, and probabilistic, correlational, proportional, and combinational reasoning. Students may take general education courses at any point in their academic careers. We found that there was no relationship between the students' GALT scores and the number of college credits completed at the time they were tested. Clearly, these students were not building their scientific logical-thinking skills in other college courses. The GALT scores indicate that 31% of the students were concrete logical thinkers, 50% were transitional logical thinkers and 19% were abstract (formal) logical thinkers. On average, they scored lowest in proportional and correlational reasoning skills. Specific geoscience activities such as the comparison of maps of different scales and the comparison of the relative motion of different tectonic plates may build proportional reasoning skills. In addition, engaging students in inquiry-based science activities and allowing them to practice building hypotheses, collecting and analyzing data and presenting conclusions should help them build their abilities in correlational reasoning.

AB - In order to develop appropriate learning activities and to structure general education laboratory components to be as effective as possible in developing logical thinking skills specific to science and that promote the building of abstract science concepts, we must have a baseline for what logical thinking skills students bring to introductory science courses. To better understand the skill sets students bring to the table, seven hundred and fifty students in a large enrollment (~75-100 students per section) introductory Earth science course completed the Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT) instrument during their first laboratory class period. The GALT is a two-tier multiple-choice assessment that measures their abilities in six categories of logical thinking: conservation, controlling variables, and probabilistic, correlational, proportional, and combinational reasoning. Students may take general education courses at any point in their academic careers. We found that there was no relationship between the students' GALT scores and the number of college credits completed at the time they were tested. Clearly, these students were not building their scientific logical-thinking skills in other college courses. The GALT scores indicate that 31% of the students were concrete logical thinkers, 50% were transitional logical thinkers and 19% were abstract (formal) logical thinkers. On average, they scored lowest in proportional and correlational reasoning skills. Specific geoscience activities such as the comparison of maps of different scales and the comparison of the relative motion of different tectonic plates may build proportional reasoning skills. In addition, engaging students in inquiry-based science activities and allowing them to practice building hypotheses, collecting and analyzing data and presenting conclusions should help them build their abilities in correlational reasoning.

UR - https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ees/58

M3 - Other contribution

• Colleges & Degrees
• Academic Calendar
• International Education
• Graduate Studies
• Accreditation
• Tuition and Fees
• Parking & Maps
• Careers with CSULB
• Alumni Home
• Alumni Volunteering
• Alumni Giving

Campus Life

• Centers & Organizations
• Commencement
• Student Life
• Office of the President
• Office of the Provost
• Administration & Finance
• Student Affairs
• University Relations & Development
• Information Technology
• Beach Shops
• Campus Directory
• Enrollment Services
• Financial Aid
• Schedule of Classes
• Student Records
• 49er Foundation
• Research Foundation

1250 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90840 562.985.4111

The Institute for Integrated Research in Materials, Environments, and Society (IIRMES) serves research collaborations between faculty and students from disciplines in physical, natural, and social sciences. IIRMES maintains an inventory of capital equipment that permits multi-scalar chemical analyses for elemental, isotopic, and molecular characterization.

This centralization of the instrumentation enhances their effective utilization, scheduling, and maintenance in a focused environment that actively encourages shared use to beneficially increase peer exchange, collegial interaction, and collaborative ventures in cross-disciplinary research, training, and teaching.

Please see Analytical Services for a full list of services that we provide.

Office of Science Policy

Artificial Intelligence

NIH promotes the safe and responsible use of AI in biomedical research through programs that support the development and use of algorithms and models for research, contribute to AI-ready datasets that accelerate discovery, and encourage multi-disciplinary partnerships that drive transparency, privacy, and equity.

Artificial Intelligence in Research: Policy Considerations and Guidance

Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are spurring tremendous progress in medical research to enhance human health and longevity. To that end, NIH has a robust system of policies and practices that guide stakeholders across the biomedical and behavioral research ecosystem. While AI may not be explicitly mentioned, NIH’s policy framework is designed to responsibly guide and govern advancing science and emerging technologies, including development and use of AI technologies in research.

The policies, best practices, and regulations listed below reflect this framework and should be considered before, during, and after development and use of AI in research. This is not an exhaustive list of all policies and requirements that may apply to any NIH-supported research project but can serve as a guide for the research community.

Please note: Unauthorized data disclosures violate several of the policies listed below. Investigators should be cognizant that research data used as input or training for AI could result in their unintentional disclosure if the data is sent to an AI provider external to NIH.

Research Participant Protections

The following establish expectations and best practices for protecting the welfare, privacy, and autonomy of research participants. The ethical considerations embedded in these policies, regulations, and best practices (e.g., privacy) address key issues relevant to the development and use of AI in research. In adhering to them, investigators can mitigate potential harms and inequities arising from the use and development of AI.

Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46) : Outlines basic provisions for Institutional Review Boards, informed consent, and assurance of compliance for NIH-supported research involving human participants and their data, including considerations of risks & benefits.

For clinical investigations that are also regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, see:

21 CFR 50 Protection of Human Subjects 21 CFR 56 Institutional Review Boards

Certificates of Confidentiality : Prohibits the disclosure of identifiable, sensitive research information to anyone not connected to the research except when the participant consents or in a few other specific situations.

NIH Information about Protecting Privacy When Sharing Human Research Participant Data : Provides a set of principles and best practices for protecting the privacy of human research participants when sharing data in NIH-supported research. (Issued under the NIH Data Management and Sharing policy.)

NIH Informed Consent for Secondary Research with Data and Biospecimens : Provides points to consider, instructions for use, and optional sample language that is designed for informed consent documents for research studies that include plans to store and share collected data and biospecimens for future use.

Data Management and Sharing

The following seek to maximize the responsible management and sharing of scientific data while ensuring that researchers consider how the privacy, rights, and confidentiality of human research participants will be protected. Increasing the availability of data through data sharing allows for more accurate development and use of AI models. These policies help ensure that investigators remain good stewards of data used in or produced by AI models.

NIH Data Management & Sharing (DMS) Policy : Establishes the requirement to submit a DMS Plan and comply with NIH-approved plans. In addition, NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices can request additional or specific information be included within the plan to support programmatic priorities or to expand the utility of the scientific data generated from the research. Also see DMS Policy Frequently Asked Questions .

Responsible Management and Sharing of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Participant Data : Describes considerations and best practices for the responsible and respectful management and sharing of AI/AN participant data under the DMS Policy.

NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy : Promotes and facilitates responsible sharing of large-scale genomic data generated with NIH funds. Also see Genomic Data Sharing Frequently Asked Questions .

Health Information Privacy

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) helps protect the privacy and security of health data used in research, including research involving AI, thereby fostering trust in healthcare research activities.

HIPAA Privacy Rule : Establishes the conditions under which protected health information may be used or disclosed by covered entities for research purposes.

Licensing, Intellectual Property, & Technology Transfer 

The following establish guidance, expectations, and best practices related to intellectual property and software sharing. They complement NIH’s data sharing initiatives, delineate investigator rights under the SBIR and STTR programs, and provide USPTO guidance on AI-related inventions. While many are not specific to AI, the policies and programs below are relevant to investigators who have developed software and source code under NIH research grants or who intend to commercialize their NIH-supported research products, including those related to development and use of AI.

NIH Best Practices for Sharing Research Software : Best practices for sharing research software and source code in a free and open format.

NIH Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) & Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) : Unique policies and approaches may apply in the context of NIH’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) & Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program. For example, recipients may retain the rights to data generated during the performance of an SBIR or STTR award.

NIH Research Tools Policy : NIH expects funding recipients to appropriately disseminate propagate and allow open access to research tools developed with NIH funding.

US Patent and Trademark Office information about AI : Provides AI-related patent resources and important information concerning AI IP policy.

Peer Review

The following clarifies NIH’s stance on the use of generative AI tools during peer review.

NOT-OD-23-149: Informs the extramural community that the NIH prohibits NIH scientific peer reviewers from using natural language processors, large language models, or other generative AI technologies for analyzing and formulating peer review critiques for grant applications and R&D contract proposals. Also see Open Mike blog on Using AI in Peer Review Is a Breach of Confidentiality .

Biosecurity and Biosafety

The following establish and are part of a comprehensive biosecurity and biosafety oversight system. Research funded by NIH, including research using the tools and technologies enabled or informed by AI, fall under this oversight framework. While some of these policies do not explicitly address AI, they are still applicable to development and use of AI in research involving biological agents, toxins, or nucleic acid molecules if such research involves physical experiments that are covered under these policies.

United States Government Policy for Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern : Describes practices and procedures to ensure that dual use research of concern (DURC) is identified at the institutional level and risk mitigation measures are implemented as necessary for U.S. Government-funded research. DURC is “life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security.” The United States Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern complements the aforementioned policy and addresses institutional oversight of DURC, which includes policies, practices, and procedures to ensure DURC is identified and risk mitigation measures are implemented, where applicable.

HHS Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens (HHS P3CO Framework): Guides Department of Health and Human Services funding decisions on individual proposed research that is reasonably anticipated to create, transfer, or use enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP). ePPP research is research that “may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans.” The HHS P3CO Framework is responsive to and in accordance with the  Recommended Policy Guidance for Departmental Development of Review Mechanisms for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight issued in 2017 by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential : On May 6, 2024, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released this new policy along with associated Implementation Guidance . This will supersede the DURC and P3CO policy frameworks on May 6, 2025. It provides a unified federal oversight framework for conducting and managing certain types of federally funded life sciences research on biological agents and toxins that have the potential to pose risks to public health, agriculture, food security, economic security, or national security. The policy “encourages institutional oversight of in silico research, regardless of funding source, that could result in the development of potential dual-use computational models directly enabling the design of a [pathogen with enhanced pandemic potential] or a novel biological agent or toxin.”

NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules : Establish safety practices and containment procedures for institutions that receive NIH funding for “basic and clinical research involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules, including the creation and use of organisms and viruses containing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules.”

• Use of Generative AI in Peer Review FAQs (NIH Office of Extramural Research)
• NIH Office of Data Science Strategy
• US Department of Health and Human Services Artificial Intelligence Use Cases Inventory
• Executive Order on the Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence
• PCAST Report to the President – Supercharging Research: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence to Meet Global Challenges
• NIH STRIDES Initiative | NIH STRIDES

For regulatory questions related to AI, see:

• Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Software as a Medical Device | FDA
• Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) for Drug Development | FDA
• Artificial Intelligence Program: Research on AI/ML-Based Medical Devices | FDA
• Digital Health Center of Excellence | FDA

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

High-capacity robots in early education: developing computational thinking with a voice-controlled collaborative robot.

1. Introduction

1.1. computational thinking skills in early childhood, 1.2. effects of interaction with robotics on computational thinking among young children.

• To what extent does a program centered on interaction with a collaborative voice-controlled robot foster computational thinking in preschool children?
• What CT components do children engage with while developing collaborative tasks through interaction with a collaborative voice-controlled robot?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. voice-controlled collaborative robot, 2.2. the ct program, 2.3. data collection tool and analysis, 3. findings.

Girl 7: Little Hand.

Little Hand: Give me the next instruction.

Girl 7: Little Hand, release it.

Little Hand: Ok, let me think.

Little Hand: Ready (robot releases the blue cube over the red cube).

Girl 8: We forgot to lower it.

Researcher: Did we succeed?

Girl 7: Yes.

Girl 8: No.

Researcher: No? Why do you say no? (to Girl 8)

Girl 8: Because it did not assemble like that one.

Researcher: Furthermore, what do you think happened?

Girl 7: It fell.

4. Discussion and Implications

5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

• Yang, W.; Ng, D.T.K.; Su, J. The impact of story-inspired programming on preschool children’s computational thinking: A multi-group experiment. Think. Ski. Creat. 2023 , 47 , 101218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Angeli, C.; Valanides, N. Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020 , 105 , 105954. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sullivan, A.; Bers, M.U. Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2018 , 28 , 325–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Georgiou, K.; Angeli, C. Developing Preschool Children’s Computational Thinking with Educational Robotics: The Role of Cognitive Differences and Scaffolding. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, Cagliari, Italy, 7–9 November 2019; pp. 101–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elkin, M.; Sullivan, A.; Bers, M.U. Programming with the KIBO robotics kit in preschool classrooms. Comput. Sch. 2016 , 33 , 169–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Papert, S.A. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas ; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L.S.; Cole, M. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes ; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakala, E.; Gerosa, A.; Hourcade, J.P.; Tejera, G. Preschool children, robots, and computational thinking: A systematic review. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 2021 , 29 , 100337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Superti Pantoja, L.; Diederich, K.; Crawford, L.; Hourcade, J.P. Explorations of Voice User Interfaces for 3 to 4 Year Old Children. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow Scotland, UK, 4–9 May 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019. CHI EA ’19. pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weintrop, D.; Wilensky, U. How block-based, text-based, and hybrid block/text modalities shape novice programming practices. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 2018 , 17 , 83–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williams, R.; Park, H.W.; Oh, L.; Breazeal, C. PopBots: Designing an Artificial Intelligence Curriculum for Early Childhood Education. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 2019 , 33 , 9729–9736. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wing, J.M. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 2006 , 49 , 33–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shute, V.J.; Sun, C.; Asbell-Clarke, J. Demystifying computational thinking. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017 , 22 , 142–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bers, M.U. Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom , 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zeng, Y.; Yang, W.; Bautista, A. Computational thinking in early childhood education: Reviewing the literature and redeveloping the three-dimensional framework. Educ. Res. Rev. 2023 , 39 , 100520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McCormick, K.; Hall, J. Computational thinking learning experiences, outcomes, and research in preschool settings: A scoping review of literature. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022 , 27 , 3777–3812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fu, C.; Hao, X.; Shi, D.; Wang, L.; Geng, F. Effect of coding learning on the computational thinking of young Chinese children: Based on the three-dimensional framework. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023 , 28 , 14897–14914. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Na, C.; Clarke-Midura, J.; Shumway, J.; van Dijk, W.; Lee, V.R. Validating a performance assessment of computational thinking for early childhood using item response theory. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 2024 , 40 , 100650. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brennan, K.; Resnick, M. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 13–17 April 2012; Volume 1, p. 25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tedre, M.; Denning, P.; Toivonen, T. CT 2.0. In Proceedings of the 21st Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Joensuu, Finland, 18–21 November 2021; pp. 1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bers, M.U.; Flannery, L.; Kazakoff, E.R.; Sullivan, A. Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Comput. Educ. 2014 , 72 , 145–157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, W. Coding with Robots or Tablets? Effects of Technology-Enhanced Embodied Learning on Preschoolers’ Computational Thinking and Social-Emotional Competence. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2024 , 62 , 07356331241226459. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sullivan, A.; Bers, M. Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2016 , 26 , 3–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiahong Su, W.Y.; Li, H. A Scoping Review of Studies on Coding Curriculum in Early Childhood: Investigating Its Design, Implementation, and Evaluation. J. Res. Child. Educ. 2023 , 37 , 341–361. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pugnali, A.; Sullivan, A.; Bers, M.U. The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Innov. Pract. 2017 , 16 , 171–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cresswell, J.W. Qualitative, Quantitative. and mixed methods approaches. Res. Des. 2003 , 10 , 723954. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson, R.B.; Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Turner, L.A. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2007 , 1 , 112–133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Relkin, E.; Bers, M. TechCheck-K: A Measure of Computational Thinking for Kindergarten Children. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Online, 21–23 April 2021; pp. 1696–1702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006 , 3 , 77–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aguilera, C.A.; Castro, A.; Aguilera, C.; Raducanu, B. Voice-Controlled Robotics in Early Education: Implementing and Validating Child-Directed Interactions Using a Collaborative Robot and Artificial Intelligence. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 2408. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dietz, G.; Le, J.K.; Tamer, N.; Han, J.; Gweon, H.; Murnane, E.L.; Landay, J.A. StoryCoder: Teaching Computational Thinking Concepts Through Storytelling in a Voice-Guided App for Children. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan, 8–13 May 2021; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021. CHI ’21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dietz, G.; Tamer, N.; Ly, C.; Le, J.K.; Landay, J.A. Visual StoryCoder: A Multimodal Programming Environment for Children’s Creation of Stories. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Hamburg, Germany, 23–28 April 2023; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2023. CHI ’23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Castro, A.; Medina, J.; Aguilera, C.A.; Ramirez, M.; Aguilera, C. Robotics Education in STEM Units: Breaking Down Barriers in Rural Multigrade Schools. Sensors 2023 , 23 , 387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chandrasekaran, B.; Conrad, J.M. Human–robot collaboration: A survey. In Proceedings of the SoutheastCon 2015, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 9–12 April 2015; pp. 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gervasi, R.; Mastrogiacomo, L.; Franceschini, F. A conceptual framework to evaluate human–robot collaboration. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2020 , 108 , 841–865. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Castro, A.; Aguilera, C.; Yang, W.; Urrutia, B. High-Capacity Robots in Early Education: Developing Computational Thinking with a Voice-Controlled Collaborative Robot. Educ. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080856

Castro A, Aguilera C, Yang W, Urrutia B. High-Capacity Robots in Early Education: Developing Computational Thinking with a Voice-Controlled Collaborative Robot. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(8):856. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080856

Castro, Angela, Cristhian Aguilera, Weipeng Yang, and Brigida Urrutia. 2024. "High-Capacity Robots in Early Education: Developing Computational Thinking with a Voice-Controlled Collaborative Robot" Education Sciences 14, no. 8: 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080856

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Solving the crisis: Rising urban temperatures

Three practical pillars for addressing climate change include nature-based solutions, incentives and trust in science

The "Solving the crisis:" series explores the pressing challenges of our time, including climate change, biodiversity collapse, housing affordability and more. Each article highlights how Waterloo, a hub of research, innovation and creative thinking, is uniquely positioned to address these issues. Through this series, we highlight the dedicated researchers who are tackling global crises and shaping a better future for all.

The University of Waterloo is a leader in sustainability research and education. Home to the largest Faculty of Environment in Canada, Waterloo has been a catalyst for environmental innovation, solutions and talent for 50 years.

Dr. Peter Crank at a press conference in Hong Kong talking about extreme heat

As the world confronts the escalating climate crisis, experts like Dr. Peter Crank , a professor in the Department of Geography and Environmental Management, are pivotal for proposing innovative solutions to mitigate its impacts. Crank, an authority in urban climatology and biometeorology, advocates for a multi-faceted approach centred on nature-based solutions, incentivizing climate-friendly practices and a people-first approach to enhancing public trust in scientific research.

His work primarily focuses on mitigating urban heat risks, which are increasingly deadly across the globe.

Crank’s vision provides a comprehensive roadmap for cities and society to navigate the complexities of climate change effectively.

Nature-based solutions for urban heat

“Nature-based solutions, like increasing vegetation and tree canopies, are crucial in urban settings for cooling,” Crank explains. “It's essential to tailor these solutions to local climates, as what's effective in one region may not work in another. Additionally, engineered shade structures, such as bus stop shelters and fabric shade sails, also play a significant role in mitigating heat impacts.”

Particularly in urban settings where concrete and asphalt exacerbate heat, increasing urban vegetation and expanding tree canopies, which provide natural cooling and improve air quality.

“In cities like Waterloo and throughout eastern Canada, planting large, shade-providing trees such as oaks and maples can significantly reduce urban temperatures,” Crank says. “However, a solution must be tailored to local climates. In arid regions like Phoenix, Arizona, native or drought-resistant plants and engineered shade solutions are often more appropriate.”

This localized approach ensures that vegetation thrives and effectively mitigates heat without exacerbating other challenges like water shortages.

Green roofs are another solution for some cities. These roofs, which support layers of soil and vegetation, not only cool buildings but also enhance biodiversity and improve urban air quality. While taller buildings may not directly cool street-level temperatures, they reduce overall energy consumption and heat emissions, indirectly benefiting pedestrians down below.

Incentivizing climate-friendly practices

Implementing nature-based solutions requires more than just planting trees or installing green roofs — it requires robust incentivization strategies. Policies that encourage individuals, businesses and governments to adopt climate-friendly practices are essential.

“In Toronto, a green roof incentivization program has led to a notable increase in green roofs, particularly in densely populated areas,” Crank explains. “Similarly, the Region of Waterloo is considering regulations to ensure rental units maintain safe indoor temperatures during heatwaves. These policies, if implemented, can protect residents from extreme heat and promote energy efficiency.”

Crank also discusses the potential of incentivizing lighter-coloured roofs, which reflect more sunlight and reduce building temperatures. Such initiatives can be simple yet effective, especially if supported by local governments and homeowner associations. By providing tax breaks, subsidies or other financial incentives — cities can accelerate the adoption of these solutions.

“Cities need to revisit zoning codes to facilitate tree planting and ensuring the maintenance of public vegetation,” Crank underscores. “Municipalities might offer rebates for residents who plant and maintain trees or take on the responsibility of watering and caring for public trees themselves.”

Communicating science and building trust

Effective climate action hinges not only on robust solutions but also on public trust and understanding. Crank emphasizes the critical role of transparent and clear science communication. In an era where misinformation is rampant, building trust in scientific research is paramount.

“As scientists, we need to contextualize our data in ways that resonate with the public,” Crank says. “Instead of presenting abstract figures, we should frame the benefits of climate solutions in tangible terms. Explaining how green roofs can lower monthly energy bills or how urban trees lead to reduced hospital admissions due to heat-related illnesses makes the science more relatable and compelling.”

He also stresses the importance of engaging with communities to address their specific concerns and needs.

“Addressing climate change is an all-of-society problem, with every decision — whether it's planting trees or installing green roofs — having unintended consequences,” Crank says. “We must consider these impacts from the outset and collaborate with the community to understand their concerns.”

When implementing solutions like planting trees, issues such as maintenance and neighbourhood safety need to be considered. Similarly, while cooling centres provide relief for those without air conditioning, they can often feel unwelcoming and even dehumanizing. Therefore, it is important to think beyond mere functionality and create spaces that also foster community and reduce social isolation.

“But with all of this, it requires not just knowing the science, but knowing the people,” Crank reinforces. “Success depends on community-based partners, cross-disciplinary conversations and approaching these efforts with empathy and flexibility.”

Crank's ideas for addressing the climate crisis is rooted in practical, localized solutions that leverage the power of nature. By incentivizing climate-friendly practices and enhancing public trust in science, his approach offers a holistic framework for urban resilience. As cities worldwide confront the growing threats of climate change, these insights provide a valuable guide for creating sustainable and livable urban environments for all.

Illustrations generated by Midjourney

Related stories

Solving the crisis: The financialization of housing

A four-pronged approach to tackle housing financialization includes an open data property registry, public housing, rent control and taxing REITs

Exploring Waterloo global wonders

Kicking off Global Entrepreneurship Week by looking at some Waterloo founded companies making a global impact

An economic engine for innovation and growth

President of Waterloo EDC says the University of Waterloo plays a pivotal role in region’s economic development on the global stage

Find an expert

Contact Media Relations

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

The University of Waterloo acknowledges that much of our work takes place on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg, and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River. Our active work toward reconciliation takes place across our campuses through research, learning, teaching, and community building, and is co-ordinated within the Office of Indigenous Relations .