Dual space search during scientific reasoning

Klahr, David

doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90007-9

Cited by 161 publications

(243 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

227

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From a psychological perspective, the individual enters a particular mode of thinking in each stage due to the problem they have to solve. This is described by Klahr and Dunbar's () Scientific Discovery as Dual Search (SDDS) model, derived from results of psychological experiments (Klahr, ) in which candidates (university students and school children) solved simulated scientific inquiry tasks. The model describes the two first phases, hypothesis generation and experimenting , as “problem spaces” and the third, evidence evaluation , as a coordination of outcomes from these.…”

Section: Scientific Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing Assessment Scales Using a Novel Disciplinary Rationale for Scientific Reasoning

Kind

2013

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kind, P. (2013) 'Establishing assessment scales using a novel disciplinary rationale for scientic reasoning.', Journal of research in science teaching., 50 (5). pp. 530-560. Further information on publisher's website: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThe paper argues that science assessment should change from an item-driven to a construct-driven practice and pay more attention to disciplinary scientific reasoning. It investigates assessment scales developed from a novel theoretical rationale, describing scientific reasoning as three fundamental practices (hypothesising, experimenting and evidence evaluation) and building on three types of knowledge (science content knowledge, procedural knowledge and epistemic knowledge). The scale development follows a construct-driven approach by, first, detailing the knowledge involved and explaining progression; and second, operationalising the theoretical construct into items and score criteria. The scales are trialled in a small-scale study. The outcome is a coherent and supportive 'validity argument' for three sub-scales, but with a suggestion that merging these into one scale has higher validity. The main implication is rewriting rationales for many science assessments, including TIMSS, which emphasises domain-general reasoning, and NAEP and PISA, which pay attention to domain-specific reasoning but are unclear about the knowledge involved.

show abstract

Section: Scientific Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing Assessment Scales Using a Novel Disciplinary Rationale for Scientific Reasoning

Kind

2013

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mechanisms of scientific reasoning by which these two kinds of knowledge are acquired are characterized by the theory of Scientific Discovery as Dual Search (Klahr & Dunbar, , p. 32) and its extensions (e.g., Schunn & Klahr, , p. 106; van Joolingen & de Jong, , pp. 310 f.).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…310 f.). According to this theory, scientific reasoning is a coordinated search (Klahr & Dunbar, , pp. 5; 35–37) in two problem spaces: the hypothesis space and the experiment space.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5; 35–37) in two problem spaces: the hypothesis space and the experiment space. The hypothesis space contains all possible hypotheses, where a hypothesis is constituted by a set of variables involved and the relations among them (Klahr & Dunbar, , pp. 17–19; 32; van Joolingen & de Jong, , p. 319).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…180 f.)—that is, by formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions (cf. Klahr & Dunbar, , pp. 2; 32 f.).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Presenting theoretical ideas prior to inquiry activities fosters theory‐level knowledge

Wecker

Rachel²,

Heran-Dörr

et al. 2013

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the course of inquiry activities similar to those of real scientists, learners are supposed to develop knowledge both on the level of observable phenomena and on the level of explanatory theories. However, some theories involve theoretical entities (e.g., "Weiss domains") that cannot be observed directly and therefore may be hard to discover. Presenting theoretical ideas before or after inquiry activities might help to overcome these difficulties. However, whereas prior presentation of theoretical ideas enables learners to apply these ideas during inquiry activities and may therefore have a sustainable effect on knowledge on the theory level, subsequent presentation of theoretical ideas does not allow for applying these ideas during inquiry activities and may therefore fail to yield a lasting effect on knowledge on the theory level. In contrast, specific scaffolds designed to guide learners during their inquiry activities to foster knowledge on the level of phenomena may be ineffective with respect to knowledge on the theory level. A 2 Â 2 Â 2-factorial experiment with the factors specificity of scaffolds (unspecific/specific), prior presentation of theoretical ideas (no/yes), and subsequent presentation of theoretical ideas (no/yes) was conducted in an inquiry unit about magnetism. The sample analyzed comprised 538 pupils from 23 seventh-grade classes. In an immediate and a delayed posttest 2 months later, both knowledge on the level of phenomena and knowledge on the theory level were measured. Prior presentation of theoretical ideas had an immediate as well as a longer-term effect on knowledge on the theory level, whereas subsequent presentation of theoretical ideas only had a short-term effect. Specific scaffolds had no effect on any of the outcome variables. These findings suggest that learners may in fact derive predictions and explanations of the outcomes of their experiments if theoretical ideas are presented beforehand, and thereby develop deeper theoretical understanding. # 2013

show abstract

Controlling Uncertainty

Osman¹

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex dynamic control tasks (CDC tasks) are a type of problem-solving environment used for examining many cognitive activities (e.g., attention, control, decision making, hypothesis testing, implicit learning, memory, monitoring, planning, and problem solving). Because of their popularity, there have been many findings from diverse domains of research (Economics, Engineering, Ergonomics, Human Computer Interaction (HCI), Management, Psychology), which remain largely disconnected from each other. The objective of this article is to review theoretical developments and empirical work on CDC tasks, and to introduce a novel framework (Monitoring and Control framework) as a tool for integrating theory and findings. The main thesis of the Monitoring and Control framework is that CDC tasks are characteristically uncertain environments, and subjective judgments of uncertainty guide the way in which monitoring and control behaviors attempt to reduce it. The article concludes by discussing new insights into continuing debates and future directions for research on CDC tasks.

show abstract

Dual space search during scientific reasoning

Cited by 161 publications

References 46 publications

Establishing Assessment Scales Using a Novel Disciplinary Rationale for Scientific Reasoning

Establishing Assessment Scales Using a Novel Disciplinary Rationale for Scientific Reasoning

Presenting theoretical ideas prior to inquiry activities fosters theory‐level knowledge

Controlling Uncertainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About