Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Education Research International
Volume 2011, Article ID 612109, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/612109
Research Article

Undergraduates' Criteria to Justify Claims Proposed after Laboratory Experiments

1Department of Materials Science, National University of Tainan, Tainan 700, Taiwan
2Department of Education, National University of Tainan, Tainan 700, Taiwan

Received 8 September 2010; Revised 2 November 2010; Accepted 7 December 2010

Academic Editor: Jan Elen

Copyright © 2011 Jer-Yann Lin and Ding-Ying Guo. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. C. N. Shealy, “A model and method for "making" a combined-integrated psychologist: equilintegration (EI) theory and the beliefs, events, and values inventory (BEVI),” Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 1065–1090, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. C. N. Shealy, “Justifying the justification hypothesis: scientific-humanism, equilintegration (EI) theory, and the beliefs, events, and values inventory (BEVI),” Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 81–106, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. A. Zohar and F. Nemet, “Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 35–62, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. V. Sampson and D. B. Clark, “Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions,” Science Education, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 447–472, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. M. A. Bishop and J. D. Trout, “Epistemology's search for significance,” Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 203–216, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. A. Samarapungavan, “Children's judgments in theory choice tasks: scientific rationality in childhood,” Cognition, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–32, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. C. A. Chinn and W. F. Brewer, “The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science instruction,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 63, pp. 1–49, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  8. C. A. Chinn and W. F. Brewer, “An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 623–654, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. Y. Lin, “Responses to anomalous data obtained from repeatable experiments in the laboratory,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 506–528, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. Hofstein, O. Navon, M. Kipnis, and R. Mamlok-Naaman, “Developing students' ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 791–806, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. A. Hofstein and V. N. Lunetta, “The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century,” Science Education, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 28–54, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. T. Lord and T. Orkwiszewski, “Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory,” American Biology Teacher, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 342–345, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. V. Sampson and L. Gleim, “Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts and practices in biology,” American Biology Teacher, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 465–472, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. D. Taitelbaum, R. Mamlok-Naaman, M. Carmeli, and A. Hofstein, “Evidence for teachers' change while participating in a continuous professional development programme and implementing the inquiry approach in the chemistry laboratory,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 593–617, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. B. J. S. Barron, D. L. Schwartz, N. J. Vye et al., “Doing with understanding: lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning,” Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 7, no. 3-4, pp. 271–311, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. K. Hogan and M. Maglienti, “Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 663–687, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. X. Zou, “How students justify their knowledge in the investigative science-learning environment,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 720, pp. 105–108, 2004.
  18. S. B. BouJaoude, “A study of the nature of students' understandings about the concept of burning,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 28, pp. 689–704, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  19. I. Galili and V. Bar, “Children's operational knowledge about weight,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 317–340, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. D. H. Palmer, “Exploring the link between students' scientific and nonscientific conceptions,” Science Education, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 639–653, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. D. H. Palmer, “Investigating the relationship between students' multiple conceptions of action and reaction in cases of static equilibrium,” Research in Science & Technological Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 193–204, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  22. T. D. Sadler and D. L. Zeidler, “The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues,” Science Education, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 71–93, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. T. D. Sadler, “Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 513–536, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. Z. Kunda, “The case for motivated reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 480–498, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. K. Edwards and E. E. Smith, “A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 5–24, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. P. H. Ditto and D. F. Lopez, “Motivated skepticism: use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 568–584, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. P. Pollard and J. S. B. T. Evans, “The effects of prior beliefs in reasoning: an associational interpretation,” British Journal of Psychology, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 73–81, 1981. View at Google Scholar
  28. D. L. Zeidler, “The central role of fallacious thinking in science education,” Science Education, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 483–496, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. T. D. Sadler, “Evolutionary theory as a guide to socioscientific decision-making,” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 68–72, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. C. W. Keys, B. Hand, V. Prain, and S. Collins, “Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1065–1084, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. B. I. Grimberg and B. Hand, “Cognitive pathways: analysis of students' written texts for science understanding,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 503–521, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. C. F. Wilcox, Experimental Organic Chemistry, Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 1979.
  33. D. J. Pasto, C. R. Johnson, and M. J. Miller, Experiments and Techniques in Organic Chemistry, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1992.
  34. R. A. D. Wentworth, Experiments in General Chemistry, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Mass, USA, 6th edition, 2002.
  35. T. Ruffman, J. Perner, D. R. Olson, and M. Doherty, “Reflecting on scientific thinking: children's understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation,” Child Development, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 1617–1636, 1993. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. B. Sodian, D. Zaitchik, and S. Carey, “Young children's differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence,” Child Development, vol. 62, pp. 753–766, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  37. W. F. Brewer, C. A. Chinn, and A. Samarapungavan, “Explanation in scientists and children,” Minds and Machines, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 119–136, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. T. A. Cahill, R. N. Schwab, B. H. Kusko et al., “The vinland map, revisited: new compositional evidence on its inks and parchment,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 829–833, 1987. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. W. C. McCrone, “The vinland map,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 1009–1018, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. M. Pickering and D. L. Monts, “How students reconcile discordant data: a study of lab report discussions,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 794–796, 1981. View at Google Scholar
  41. S. I. Miller and M. Fredericks, “Reliabilism 'naturalized',” Social Epistemology, vol. 16, pp. 367–376, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  42. F. Dretske, “Conclusive reasons,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 49, pp. 1–22, 1971. View at Google Scholar
  43. A. I. Goldman, “A priori warrant and naturalistic epistemology,” in Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 13, pp. 1–28, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  44. C. A. Chinn and B. A. Malhotra, “Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: how is conceptual change impeded?” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 327–343, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. J.-Y. Lin and D.-Y. Guo, “Students' nonscientific thinking in justification,” in submission.