Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking
Open accessAbstract
A perspective about science education is developed which has implications for the design of interactive learning technologies. Current philosophical work concerning the interpretative nature of scientific inquiry is reviewed as a context for discussing the situation of the child in developing scientific understanding. This view of learning emphasizes the relationships among informal understanding, conceptual change, and enculturation into modes of scientific discourse. A prototype software system for supporting scientific inquiry processes in students is described.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 77 · Cited by 202
- Authors
- Hawkins, J., & Pea, R. D.
- Affiliations
- Bank Street College of Education (US)
- ORCID
- Pea, Roy D.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1987-04
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 291-307
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2138478376
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 9.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- telearn.hal.science
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
- Keywords
- conceptual change, interactive learning technologies, philosophy of science education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
