Expert‐novice problem‐solving research is extended in this study to include classical genetics. Eleven undergraduates (novices) and nine graduate students and instructors (experts) were videotaped as they solved moderately complex genetics problems. Detailed analysis of these “think aloud” protocols resulted in 32 common tendencies that could be used to differentiate between successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Experts perceive a problem as a task requiring analysis and reasoning and they tend to use a knowledge‐development (forward‐working) approach. They make frequent checks on the correctness of their work, use accurate and detailed bookkeeping procedures, and have a broader range of heuristics to apply to the problem. It is clear that studying problem solving using the expert/novice design requires that the problems be difficult enough to require more than more recall and yet simple enough to allow novices a chance for solution. Applying elementary probability concepts seemed to be the most difficult aspect of many of the genetics problems, even for the experts.
The purpose of this study was to describe the problem-solving behaviors of experts and novices engaged in solving seven chemical equilibrium problems. Thirteen novices (five highschool students, five undergraduate majors, and three nonmajors) and ten experts (six doctoral students and four faculty members) were videotaped as they individually solved standard chemical equilibrium problems. The nature of the problems was such that they required more than mere recall or algorithmic learning and yet simple enough to provide the novices a reasonable chance of solving them. Extensive analysis of the think-aloud protocols produced 27 behavioral tendencies that can be used to describe and differentiate between successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Successful solvers' perceptions of the problem were characterized by careful analysis and reasoning of the task, use of related principles and concepts to justify their answers, frequent checks of the consistency of answers and reasons, and better quality of procedural and strategic knowledge. Unsuccessful subjects had many knowledge gaps and misconceptions about the nature of chemical equilibrium. Even faculty experts were sometimes unable to correctly apply common chemical principles during the problem-solving process. Important theoretical concepts such as molar enthalpy, heat of reaction, free energy of formation, and free energy of reaction were rarely used by novices in explaining problems.
The work of Bishop and Anderson (1990) plays a major role in educators' understanding of evolution education. Their findings remind us that the majority of university students do not understand the process of evolution but that conceptual change instruction can be moderately effective in promoting the construction of a scientific understanding. The present article details two studies that represent an effort to focus on and define the limits of the Bishop and Anderson (1990) study. Study A describes a close replication of the work of Bishop and Anderson (1990) using the same conceptual‐change teaching module to teach a unit on evolution to students enrolled in a biology course for nonmajors. Study B, a case of comparison, used the same evaluation instrument used in Bishop and Anderson (1990) and Study A, but high school students were the participants and the instruction was based on the inquiry approach to science. Like Bishop and Anderson (1990), Study A showed that the amount of prior instruction and students' beliefs in evolution were not found to be large factors in students' use of scientific conceptions. Unlike the original study, the students in Study A showed only a meager increase in their use of scientific conceptions for evolution. In Study B, students in the experimental group showed significant increases in their use of scientific conceptions. These findings suggest a need to investigate more closely the teachers' theories of learning, their reliance on instructional conversations, and the amount of time devoted to the topic of evolution as we study conceptual change in this area.
Building on the earlier analysis by Berlin (1991), this paper reviews various studies on integrating mathematics and science in the 1990s and provides some implications for further research. The areas identified for further exploration include comparison of the nature of mathematics and science, epistemological debates in mathematics and in science education, the bases used to emphasize science over mathematics or vice versa, empirical evidence of effectiveness of integration, connections between teacher education programs for integration and teachers' subsequent classroom teaching practices, perceptions of integration on the part of teacher educators, contextual difficulties in implementing integrated approaches and possible solutions, and rationales of integrating mathematics and science through technology. In order to help all students become scientifically literate, which most reform documents call for, more focused attention on integration of curriculum and instruction is necessary.
Physics 2nd Edition Rent. This book is about scientific theories of a particular kind-theories of mathematical physics. Examples of such theories are classical and relativis tic particle 9789027701664: The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Mathematical physics refers to the development of mathematical methods for application to. The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Titchmarsh, Edward The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics-ResearchGate 24 Mar 2018. A Set Theoretic Versus a Model Theoretic Approach to the Logical Structure of Physical Theories: Some Comments on J. Sneed s The Logical The logical structure of mathematical physics-Google Books Buy The logical structure of mathematical physics. on Amazon.com ? FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders. Amazon.com: The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics, 2nd It is argued that each theory of mathematical physics has associated with it a certain characteristic mathematical struc ture. This structure may be used in a Sneed J.D. The logical structure of mathematical physics [DJVU This book is about scientific theories of a particular kind-theories of mathematical physics. Examples of such theories are classical and relativis tic particle Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics: By Joseph D Sneed, J D. We ll e-mail you with an Internet-based download the logical structure of mathematical thing As not as we have more place. Your download the will well switch The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics by Joseph D. Sneed (1971-03-01): Books-Amazon.ca. The logical structure of mathematical physics-Poche-J.D.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.