The rationality of science, critical thinking, and science education

Siegel, Harvey

doi:10.1007/bf00869946

Cited by 117 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this literature, inquiry is often described as a knowledgebuilding process in which explanations are developed to make sense of data and then presented to a community of peers so they can be critiqued, debated, and revised (Driver et al, 2000;Duschl, 2000;Sandoval & Reiser, 2004;Vellom & Anderson, 1999). Thus, the ability to participate in productive scientific argumentation (i.e., the ability to examine and then either accept or reject the relationships or connections between and among the evidence and theoretical ideas invoked in an explanation) is viewed by many as an indicator of scientific literacy (Driver et al, 2000;Duschl & Osborne, 2002;Jimenez-Aleixandre et al, 2000;Kuhn, 1993;Siegel, 1989). Yet opportunities for students to learn how to engage in productive scientific argumentation in the context of science are rare (Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999;Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006).…”

Section: Literature Review Scientific Argumentation In Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 97%

The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines three questions about the impact of collaboration during scientific argumentation. First, do groups craft better arguments than individuals? Second, to what degree do individuals adopt and internalize the arguments crafted by their group? Third, do individuals who work in groups learn more from their experiences than individuals who work on their own? To examine these questions, 168 high school chemistry students were randomly assigned, using a matched pair design to collaborative or individual argumentation conditions. Students in both treatment conditions first completed a task that required them to produce an argument articulating and justifying an explanation for a discrepant event. The students then completed mastery and transfer problems on their own. The results of this study indicate that (a) groups of students did not produce better arguments than students who worked alone, (b) a substantial proportion of the students adopted at least some elements of their group's argument, and (c) students from the collaborative condition demonstrated superior performance on the mastery and transfer problems. These observations indicate that collaboration was beneficial for individual learning but not for initial performance on the task. The study concludes with a discussion of these observations and recommendations for future research.

show abstract

Section: Literature Review Scientific Argumentation In Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 97%

The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…37 Siegel (1991) writes with some passion about critical thinking, critical spirit, and the love of reason as the curricular goals and responsibilities of science education. At various places in his account, Karen offers herself as a case in point.…”

Section: The Breakmentioning

confidence: 99%

On an actual apparatus for conceptual change

Macbeth

2000

Sci. Ed.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The project of “conceptual change” has assumed a central place in science education, as both a research program and professional maxim. Conceptual change flags the transformation of students' naive conceptualizations of science into the scientific understandings of their curriculum. This article organizes a reading of the literature that brings into view a collection of design specifications for a conceptual change apparatus. Moving from the conceptual to the practical, it then pursues an analysis of one such apparatus, in the particulars of a science education demonstration program produced by the Harvard–Smithsonian Private Universe Project. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 84:228–264; 2000.

show abstract

“…Learning Areas' knowledge claims imply the development of certain attitudes, skills and values. For instance, in the case of science, deriving sense out of the world calls for students' open-mindedness to scrutinise assumptions about knowledge (Siegel, 1989). This process of sense-making also stipulates the development of critical thinking (Siegel, 1989).…”

Section: Knowledge Claims In Learning Areas and Ties To The Key Compementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, in the case of science, deriving sense out of the world calls for students' open-mindedness to scrutinise assumptions about knowledge (Siegel, 1989). This process of sense-making also stipulates the development of critical thinking (Siegel, 1989). This skill is entrenched in the NZC's Values as underpinning 'innovation, inquiry, and curiosity' (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 10).…”

Section: Knowledge Claims In Learning Areas and Ties To The Key Compementioning

confidence: 99%