A cognitive framework for reasoning with scientific models

Journal of Geoscience Education

Volumn 57, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 255-263

  Sibley, Duncan F ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; EDUCATION; GEOLOGY; LEARNING; MODEL; STUDENT;

EID: 70450179799     PISSN: 10899995     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5408/1.3559672     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Airy, G.B. 1855, On the computation of the effect of the attraction of mountain masses: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, v. 145, p. 101-104.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy: A Project 2016 Report, New York, Oxford University Press, 448 p.
3. Blanchette, I. and Dunbar, K., 2002, Representational change and analogy: How analogical inferences alter target representations: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, v. 28, p. 672-685.
4. Bridges, N.T., Hook, S.J., Crowley, J.K., Filho, R. deS., Macambira, J.B., Silva, G., deL. P., Thomson, B.J., 2008, Brazilian Analog for Ancient Marine Environments on Mars: EOS, v. 89, p. 329-330.
5. Brookes, D.T. and Etkina, E., 2007, Using conceptual metaphor and functional grammar to explore how language used in physics affects student learning: Physical Review Special Topics; Physics Education Research, v. 3, 010105, p. 1-16.
6. Chamberlin, T.C. and Salisbury, R. 1907, Geology, New York, Holt, 692 p.
7. Christensen, J.H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R.K. Kolli, W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C.G. Menéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr and P. Whetton, 2007, Regional Climate Projections, 2007, in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L., eds., New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 829-946.
8. Clement, J. 1989, Learning via model construction and criticism, in Glover, G., Ronning, R., and Reynolds, C., eds., Handbook of Creativity: Assessment, Theory and Research, New York, Plenum, p. 341-381.
9. Clement, J., 2000, Model-based learning as a key research area of science education: International Journal of Science Education, v.42, p. 1041-1053.
10. Coll, R.K. 2005, The role of models/and analogies in science education: implications from research: International Journal of Science Education, v. 27, p.183-198.
11. Donovan, S.M. and Bransford, J.D. 2005, How Students learn: history, mathematics and science in the classroom: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 615 p.
12. Duit, R. 1991, On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science: Science Education, v. 75, p. 649-672.
13. Dutton, C.E.1889, On some of the great problems in physical geography: Bulletin of the Philosophical Society of Washington, v. 11, p. 51-64.
14. Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., and Law, K., 1995, MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval: Cognitive Science, v.19, p.141-205.
15. Frodeman, R. 1995, Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.107, p. 960-968.
16. Gentner, D. 1983, Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy: Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
17. Gentner, D., 1989, The mechanism of analogicval learning: in S. Vosniadou and A. Ortony, eds., Similarity and analogical reasoning: London: Cambridge University Press. p. 199-241.
18. Gentner, D. 2003, Why we're so smart: in Gentner, D. and Goldin -Meadow, S., eds., Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought: Cambridge, MA., MIT Press, p.195-235.
19. Gentner, D., and Colhoun, J. in press, Analogical processes in human thinking and learning: in A. von Müller & E. Pöppel, series eds. and B. Glatzeder, V. Goel, & A. von Müller, eds., On Thinking: Vol. 2. Towards a Theory of Thinking: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
20. Gentner, D., and Markman, A.B. 1997, Structural alignment in analogy and similarity: American Psychologist, v. 52, p. 45-56.
21. Gick, M.L. and Holyoak, K.J. 1983, Schema induction and analogical transfer: Cognitive Psychology, v. 15, p. 1-38.
22. Gilbert, S.1989, An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile and metaphor in science texts: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 26, p. 315-327.
23. Gilbert, S. 1991, Model building and a definition of science: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 28, p. 3-17.
24. Gilbert, J. K., and Boulter, C. J., 1997, Learning science through models and modelling: in B. J. Fraser and K. Tobin, eds., The International Handbook of Science Education: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer, p. 53-66.
25. Gobert, J.D. and Buckly, B.C. 2000, Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education: International Journal of Science Education, v. 22, p. 891-894.
26. Goswami, U., 2001, Analogical Reasoning in Children: in D. Gentner, K.J. Holyoak, and B.N Kokinov eds., The Analogical Mind: Cambridge, MIT Press, p. 437-470.
27. Hesse, M. 1966, Models and Analogies in Science: Illinois, University of Notre Dame Press, 184 p.
28. Hesse, M. 2000, Models and analogies, in Newton-Smith, ed., A Companion to the Philosophy of Science: Malden, MA, Blackwell Publication, p. 299-307.
29. Hofstadter, D. 1979, Gödel, Escher, Bach, an eternal golden braid: New York, Basic Books, 1979, 777 p.
30. Hofstadter, D. 2001, Epilogue: analogy as the core of cognition: in D. Gentner, K.J. Holyoak and B.N. Kokinov, eds., The Analogical Mind: Cambridge, MIT Press, p. 499-538.
31. Hofstadter, D., 2007, I am a Strange Loop, New YorK,: Basic Books, 412 p.
32. Holyoak, K.J., 2005,. Analogy, in: Gentner, D., K.J. Holyoak, K.J., and B.N Kokinov, B.N., editors, The Analogical Mind, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, p. 117-142.
33. Hummel, J. E., and Holyoak, K. J., 2003, A symbolic- connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization: Psychological Review, v. 110, p. 220-264.
34. Johnson-Laird, P.N., 2006, How We Reason: New York, Oxford University Press, 573 p.
35. Jones, G.D. and Xiao, Y., 2005, Dolomitization, anhydrite cementation and porosity evolution in a reflux system: insights from reactive transport models: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 89, p. 577-601.
36. Kitts, D.B., 1976, Certainty and uncertainty in geology: American Journal of Science, v. 276, p. 29-46.
37. Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., and Wirkala, C., 2008, Beyond control of variables: what needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking: Cognitive Development, v. 23, p. 435-451.
38. Kuhn, T. S., 1970, Logic of discovery of psychology of research: in: Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 1-23
39. Lakoff G. and Johnson, M., 1980, Metaphors We Live By: Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 242 p.
40. Libarkin, J. C., Beilfuss, M., and Kurdziel, J.P., 2003, Research methodologies in science education: mental models and cognition: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 51, p.121-126.
41. Matthews, D., 2006, The water cycle freshens up: Nature, v.439, p.793-794.
42. Middleton, G.V., 1973, Joannes Walther's law of correlation of facies: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.84, p.125-142.
43. Middleton, G. V., 2003, ed., Encyclopedia of Sediments and Sedimentary Rocks: Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Press, 821 p.
44. National Research Council, 2000, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: Washington DC, National Academy Press, 202 p.
45. Oreskes, N., 1999, The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science: New York, Oxford University Press, 420 p.
46. Osherson, D.N., and Smith, E.E., 1981, On the adequacy of prototypes theory as a theory of concepts: Cognition v. 9, p.35-58.
47. Pinker, S., 2007, The Stuff of Thought: New York, Penguin, 499 p.
48. Sandoval, W. A., 2005, Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry: Science Education, v. 89, p. 634-656.
49. Schumm, S.A., 1991, To Interpret the Earth: Ten Ways to be Wrong: New York, Cambridge University Press, 133 p.
50. Schurz, G., 2001, What is normal? An evolution-theoretic foundation for normic laws and their relation to statistical normality: Philosophy of Science, v. 68, p.476-497.
51. Schwartz, R.S. and Lederman, N.G., 2005, What scientists say: Scientists' views of models: American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, April 12, Montreal Canada, 15p.
52. Sleep, N. and Fujita, K., 1997, Principles of Geophysics: Malden, MA, Blackwell Science 586 p.
53. Sloman, S.A. and Rips, L.J., 1998, Similarity as an explanatory construct: Cognition, v. 65, p. 87-101.
54. Thompson, D.W., 1917, On Growth and Form. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1116 p.
55. Treagust, D.F., Harrison, A.G., Venille, G.J., and Dagher, Z., 1996, Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change: International Journal of Science Education, v. 18, p. 213-229.
56. Van Der Valk, T., Van Driel, J.H., and De Vos, W., 2007, Common characteristics of models in present-day scientific practice: Journal of Research in Science Education, v. 37, p. 469-488.
57. Van Driel, J.H., and Verloop, N., 1999, Teachers' knowledge of models and modelling in science: International Journal of Science Education, v. 21, p. 1141-1153.
58. Walker, R.G., 1992, Facies, models and modern stratigraphic concepts, in: R.G. Walker, R.G. and James, N.P., eds., Facies Models Response to Sea Level Change, Toronto, Geological Association of Canada, p. 1-14.
59. White, B.Y. and Frederiksen, J.R., 1998, Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Cognition and Instruction, v.16, p. 3-118.
60. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., and Braaten, M., 2008, Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations: Science Education, v. 92, p. 941-967.