Linguistic inferencing uniquely predicts all three components of children's scientific reasoning over and above visuospatial inferencing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In the final path model, linguistic inferencing was the only predictor of Generating conclusions and also predicted Hypothesis validation and Experimentation. → Van de Sande 2019

Evidence¶

Van de Sande 2019¶

Van de Sande, E., Kleemans, T., Verhoeven, L., & Segers, E. (2019). The linguistic nature of children's scientific reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 62, 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.02.002

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Path analysis (SEM) in 269 sixth graders; the final parsimonious model "demonstrated a strong fit: x2 (6) = 8.09,p= .23, RMSEA = 0.036, CFI = 0.99, and GFI = 0.99". Standardised path coefficients are shown in Fig. 1; no effect sizes are printed.

"All three cognitive predictors relate to Hypothesis validation, both inferencing skills but not academic vocabulary relate to Experimentation, and only linguistic inferencing relates to Generating conclusions."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Inferencing — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Academic vocabulary relates to hypothesis validation and experimentation but not to generating conclusions in sixth graders — related
• Visuospatial inferencing relates to hypothesis validation and experimentation but not to generating conclusions when linguistic abilities are controlled — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Vocabulary is the only unique predictor of global coherence inference making at all three ages, 6 through 10 years — related
• Children's scientific reasoning at the end of primary school has a three-component structure: Hypothesis validation, Experimentation, and Generating conclusions — related