The distinction between experimental and historical sciences as a framework for improving classroom inquiry

Science Education

Volumn 98, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 327-341

  Gray, Ron ^a  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894073258     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21098     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Allchin, D., Singer, F., Hagen, J. B. (1996). Doing biology. New York: HarperCollins College.
2. Alvarez, L., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., Michel, H. (1980). Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. Science, 208(4448), 1095-1108.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy (p. 418). New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Atwater, B. (2005). The orphan tsunami of 1700: Japanese clues to a parent earthquake in North America. Seattle, WA: U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Washington Press.
6. Ault, C. R. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 189-212.
7. Ault, C. R., Dodick, J. (2010). Tracking the footprints puzzle: The problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94(6), 1092-1122.
8. Averill, B., Eldredge, P. (2006). Chemistry: Principles, patterns, and applications. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.
9. Bowen, G. M., Roth, W.-M. (2006). The practice of field ecology: Insights for science education. Research in Science Education, 37(2), 171-187.
10. Bransford, J. D., Donovan, M. S. (2005). Scientific inquiry and how people learn. In M. S. Donovan J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: Science in the classroom (pp. 397-419). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
11. Brown, B. (2011). Ecology as historical science. Philosophy of Ecology, 11, 251-284.
12. Chamberlin, T. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 15(366), 92-96.
13. Cleland, C. E. (2001). Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology, 29(11), 987.
14. Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 447-451.
15. Cleland, C. E. (2011). Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(3), 551-582.
16. Cleland, C. E. (2013). Common cause explanation and the search for a smoking gun. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 502, 1-9.
17. Dempsey, C., Bodzin, A., Cirucci, L. (2012). Reconstructing environmental change using lake varves as a climate proxy. Science Scope, 35(7), 42-47.
18. Diamond, J. M. (1986). Overview: Laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. In J. M. Diamond T. Chase (Eds.), Community ecology (pp. 3-22). New York: HarperCollins College.
19. Diamond, J. M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: WW Norton.
20. Diamond, J., Zimmer, C. (2006). Virus and the whale: Exploring evolution in creatures small and large. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
21. Dodick, J., Argamon, S., Chase, P. (2009). Understanding scientific methodology in the historical and experimental sciences via language analysis. Science Education, 18(8), 985-1004.
22. Dodick, J., Orion, N. (2003a). Introducing evolution to non-biology majors via the fossil record: A case study from the Israeli high school system. The American Biology Teacher, 65(3), 185-190.
23. Dodick, J., Orion, N. (2003b). Geology as an historical science: Its Perception within science and the education system. Science Education, 12, 197-211.
24. Dott, R. H. (1998). What is unique about geological reasoning? GSA Today, 8(10), 15-18.
25. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-396). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Duschl, R. A., Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science Education, 22(9), 2109-2139.
27. Erwin, D. H. (2011). A paleontological look at history. Cliodynamics, 2(1), 27-39.
28. Frodeman, R. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 107(8), 960-968.
29. Gee, H. (1999). In Search of deep time: Beyond the fossil record to a new history of life (pp. 267). New York: Cornell University Press.
30. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
31. Gould, S. J. (1986). Evolution and the triumph of homology, or why history matters. American Scientist, 74, 60-69.
32. Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: The burgess shale and the nature of life. New York: Norton.
33. Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory (pp. 1433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Gray, R. E., Kang, N.-H. (2014). The structure of scientific arguments by secondary science teachers: Comparison of experimental and historical science topics. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 46-65.
35. Grignon, C. (2012). Is cosmology a historical science? AIP Conference Proceedings, 1446, 333-337.
36. Hansen, T., Slesnick, I. (2006). Adventures in paleontology: 36 classroom fossil activities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
37. Jeffares, B. (2008). Testing times: Regularities in the historical sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 39(4), 469-475.
38. Jeffares, B. (2009). Guessing the future of the past. Biology Philosophy, 25(1), 125-142.
39. Kastens, K., Turrin, M. (2010). Earth science puzzles: Making meaning from data. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
40. Kingsland, S. (1995). Modeling nature: Episodes in the history of population ecology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41. Klahr, D., Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1-48.
42. Kosso, P. (2001). Knowing the past: Philosophical issues of history and archaeology. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.
43. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Latour, B., Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
46. Magnani, L. (2003). Abduction, reason, and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
47. Magnani, L. (2013). Is abduction ignorance-preserving? Conventions, models and fictions in science. Logic Journal of IGPL, 21(6), 882-914.
48. Mayr, E. (1985). How biology differs from the physical sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. McGarry, M., Straffon, D., Patterson, C. (2012). Explaining four earth science enigmas with a new hypothesis. Science Scope, 35(7), 35-41.
50. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
51. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
52. Nelson, A., Atwater, B., Bobrowsky, P., Bradley, L., Clague, J. J., Carver, G. A., etnbsp;al. (1995). Radiocarbon evidence for extensive plate-boundary rupture about 300 years ago at the Cascadia subduction zone. Nature (London), 378, 371-374.
53. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. Cognitive Models of Science, 15, 3-44.
54. Nersessian, N. J. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? Model-based simulation in biomedical engineering research laboratories. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 730-757.
55. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
56. Oh, P. S. (2008). Adopting the abductive inquiry model (AIM) into undergraduate earth science laboratories. In I. V. Eriksson (Ed.), Science education in the 21st century (pp. 263-277). New York: Nova Science.
57. Passmore, C. M., Stewart, J. H. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204.
58. Peirce, C. S. (1978). [Harvard] Lectures on pragmatism. Collected Papers of C. S. Peirce (pp. 171-172). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
59. Pyle, E. (2008). A model of inquiry for teaching earth science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 12(2), 3.
60. Raup, D. (1999). The nemesis affair: A story of the death of dinosaurs and the ways of science. New York: WW Norton.
61. Roth, W.-M., Bowen, G. M. (2001). quot;Creative solutionsquot; and quot;fibbing resultsquot;: Enculturation in field ecology. Social Studies of Science, 31(4), 533-556.
62. Rudolph, J. L. (2003a). Some thoughts on portraying epistemology in today's classrooms: A reply to Garrison. Science Education, 87(1), 90-93.
63. Rudolph, J. L. (2003b). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87(1), 64-79.
64. Rudolph, J. L. (2007). An inconvenient truth about science education. The Teachers College Record. Published February 9, 2007, on the Teachers College Record website, ID Number: 13216. Retrieved June 27, 2013, from http://www.tcrecord.org/.
65. Rudolph, J. L., Stewart, J. H. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1069-1089.
66. Schumm, S. (1998). To interpret the Earth: Ten ways to be wrong. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
67. Sibley, D. F. (2009). A cognitive framework for reasoning with scientific models. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(4), 255-263.
68. Smoot, G., Davidson, K. (2007). Wrinkles in time: Witness to the birth of the universe. New York: Avon Books.
69. Sober, E. (1993). Philosophy of biology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
70. Traweek, S. (1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists (pp. 187). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71. Tucker, A. (2011). Historical science, over- and underdetermined: A study of Darwin's inference of origins. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(4), 805-829.
72. Turner, D. D. (2007). Making prehistory: Historical science and the scientific realism debate. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
73. Turner, D. D. (2013). Historical geology: Methodology and metaphysics. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 502, 11-18.
74. Walton, D. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
75. Weiner, J. (1995). The beak of the finch: A story of evolution in our time. New York: Vintage Books.
76. Whewell, W. (1837). History of the inductive sciences: From the earliest to the present times. London: Cass.