The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collaborative Discovery in a Scientific Domain
Open accessAbstract
This study compares Pairs of subjects with Single subjects in a task of discovering scientific laws with the aid of experiments. Subjects solved a molecular genetics task in a computer micro‐world (Dunbar, 1993). Pairs were more successful in discovery than Singles and participated more actively in explanatory activities (i.e., entertaining hypotheses and considering alternative ideas and justifications). Explanatory activities were effective for discovery only when the subjects also conducted crucial experiments. Explanatory activities were facilitated when paired subjects made requests of each other for explanation and focused on them. The study extends from individual to collaborative discovery activities the importance to the discovery process of setting goals to find hypotheses and evidence (Dunbar, 1993) and to construct explanations of phenomena and processes encountered in examples (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, & Glaser, 1989).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.211 · Cited by 2,094
How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds
Hutchins, E. (1995) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1 · Cited by 1,880
Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 · Cited by 1,714
Dual space search during scientific reasoning
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1 · Cited by 1,058
Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence
Schauble, L. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-0965(90)90048-d · Cited by 420
Cited by
The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 · Cited by 2,911
Barron, B. (2003) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1203_1 · Cited by 1,446
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998) · Mind, Culture, and Activity · doi:10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3 · Cited by 662
Self-citationParents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking
Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00347 · Cited by 482
Technological advances in inquiry learning
de Jong, T. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1127750 · Cited by 469
Metadata
- Authors
- Okada, T., & Simon, H. A.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-04-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 109-146
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2061622313
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 60.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Collaborative Discovery in a Scientific Domain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0364-0213(99)80020-2
- The paper
- Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative Discovery in a Scientific Domain. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0364-0213(99)80020-2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
