Modelling analysis of students’ processes of generating scientific explanatory hypotheses

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 469-489

  Park, Jongwon ^a  

^a Chonnam National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645115169     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690500404540     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Behrendt, H., Dahncke, H., Duit, R., Graber, W., Komorek, M., Kross, A., & Reiska, P. (Eds.). (2001). Research in science education—Past, present, and future. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers
2. Chalmers, A. F. (1986). What is this thing called science? Buckingham, England: Open University Press
3. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, XV (pp. 129-186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
4. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623-654.
5. Clement, J. (1987). Overcoming misconceptions in physics: The role of anchoring intuitions and analogical validity. In J. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar Misconceptions and Educational Strategies (Vol. III, pp. 84-87). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
6. Cropley, A. J. (1999). Definition of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity (pp. 511-524). London: Academic Press.
7. Darden, L. (1992). Strategies in anomaly resolution. In R. Giere (Ed.). Cognitive models of science (pp. 251-273). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
8. Dirac, P. (1981). The test of Einstein. In S. Brown, J. Fauvel, & R. Finnegan (Eds.), Conceptions of inquiry (pp. 88-93). London: Methuen in association with the Open University Press.
9. Driver, R. (1988). The pupils as scientist? Buckingham, England: Open University Press
10. Feynman, R. (1965). The character of physical law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Fisher, S. D., Gettys, C. E., Manning, C., Mehle, T., & Baca, S. (1983). Consistency checking in hypothesis generation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 233-254.
12. Gould, C. (1986). Models, meters and memory. Research in Science Education, 16, 49-54.
13. Hanson, N. R. (1961). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
14. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: The Free Press.
15. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
16. Lakatos, I. (1994). The methodology of scientific research programmes. In J. Worrall & G. Vurrie (Eds.), The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers volume 1 (pp. 8-101). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
18. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
19. Limon, M., & Mason, L. (Eds.). (2002). Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in Theory and Practice. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20. Park, J., & Han, S. (2002). Deductive reasoning to promote the change of concept about force and motion. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 593-610.
21. Park, J., & Kim, I. (1998). Analysis of students’ responses to contradictory results obtained by simple observation or controlling variables. Research in Science Education, 28, 365-376.
22. Park, J., Kim, I., Kim, M., & Lee, M. (2001). Analysis of students’ processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1219-1236.
23. Park, J., & Pak, S. (1997). Students’ responses to experimental evidence based on perceptions of causality and availability of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 57-67.
24. Peirce, C. S. (1955) Abduction and induction. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 150-156). New York: Dover Publications.
25. Peirce, C. S. (1998a). The three normative sciences: the fifth lecture on 30 April 1903. In the Peirce Edition Project (Ed.), The essential Pierce: Selected philosophical writings. Vol. 2 (1893-1913) (pp. 196-207). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
26. Peirce, C. S. (1998b). The nature of meaning: the sixth lecture on 7 May 1903. In the Peirce Edition Project (Ed.), The essential Pierce: Selected philosophical writings. Vol. 2 (1893-1913) (pp. 208-225). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
27. Popper, K. R. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
28. Quinn, M. E., & George, K. D. (1975). Teaching hypothesis formation. Science Education, 59, 289-296.
29. Shepardson, D., Moje, E., & Kennard-McClellard, A. (1994). The impact of a science demonstration on children’s understandings of air pressure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 243-258.
30. Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. West & A. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-231). New York: Academic Press
31. Wenham, M. (1993). The nature and role of hypotheses in school investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 231-240.
32. Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.