"It's Harder than We Thought It Would be": A Comparative Case Study of Expert-Novice Experimentation Strategies

Science Education

Volumn 86, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 219-243

  Hmelo Silver, Cindy E ^a   Nagarajan, Anandi ^a   Day, Roger S ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036109484     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.10002     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Abrams, E. (1997). Talking and doing science: Important elements in a teaching-for-understanding approach. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee, & J. D. Novack (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 307-323). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
2. Baker, L. M., & Dunbar, K. (1996). Constraints of the experimental design process in real-world science. In G. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighteenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 154-159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Chase, W., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81.
4. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
5. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
6. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2000). Epistemologically authentic experimentation. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from professional, instructional, and everyday science (pp. 351-391). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Day, R., Shirey, W., Ramakrishnan, S., & Huang, Q. (1998). Tumor biology modeling workbench for prospectively evaluating cancer treatments. Paper presented at the 2nd IMACS International Multiconference: CES A'98 Computational Engineering in Systems Applications, Tunisia.
8. Dunbar, K. (1993). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Mechanisms of insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 26, 1-26.
10. Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1984). Issues of generality in medical problem-solving. In H. G. Schmidt & M. L. De Voider (Eds.), Tutorials in problem-based learning: A new direction in teaching the health professions. Maastricht, Netherland: Van Gorum.
11. Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulsen, R. L. (1997). Issues of expert flexibility in contexts characterized by complexity and change. In P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, & R. R. Huffman (Eds.), Expertise in context (pp. 125-146). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
12. Gitomer, D. H., & Duschl, R. A. (1995). Moving towards a portfolio culture in science education. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools (pp. 299-326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Hmelo, C. E., & Guzdial, M. (1996). Of black and glass boxes: Scaffolding for learning and doing. In D. C. Edelson & E. A. Domeshek (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS'96 (pp. 128-134). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
15. Hmelo, C. E., Ramakrishnan, S., Day, R. S., Shirey, W. E., Huang, Q., & Baar, J. (1998). Developing inquiry skills through scaffolded use of a simulation. In A. Bruckman, M. Guzdial, J. L. Kolodner, & A. Ram (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS'98 (pp. 141-151). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
16. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988), Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48.
17. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp, 284-315). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
18. Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovich, P., Glaser R., Klopfer, D., & Wang, Y. (1988). Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing X-ray pictures. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 311-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Minstrell, J. (2000). Implications for teaching and learning inquiry: A summary. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 471-496). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
20. Nersessian, N. J. (1995). Should physicists preach what they practice?: Constructive modeling in doing and learning physics, Science and Education, 4(3), 203-226.
21. Patel, V. L., & Groen, G. J. (1986). Knowledge-based solution strategies in medical reasoning. Cognitive Science, 10, 91-116.
22. Ramakrishnan, S., Hmelo, C. E., Day, R. S., Shirey, W. E., & Huang, Q. (1998). The integration of a novice user interface into a professional modeling tool. In proceedings of 1998 AMIA conference.
23. Simon, R. (1993). Design and conduct of clinical trials. In V. T. De Vita, S. Hellman, & S. A. Rosenberg (Eds.), Cancer: Principles and practice of oncology (pp. 418-439). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
24. Trickett, S. B., Trafton, J. G., & Raymond, P. D. (1998). Exploration in the experiment space: The relationship between systematicity and performance. In proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Madison, WI: Erlbaum.