The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cross-Domain Development of Scientific Reasoning
Abstract
The two studies presented here examine processes of theory revision and strategy change that occur when preadolescent subjects engage in self-directed exploration of a problem domain. The microgenetic method, involving frequent encounters with the same tasks over a period of months, permitted detailed observation of the change process. Not only do theories themselves undergo revision but also the reasoning strategies subjects use to generate new knowledge show improvement over time. The cross-domain feature of the research made it possible to establish that these strategies show co-development when subjects are observed over time working in two different content domains. The research thus accomplishes the objective of more clearly distinguishing the reasoning competencies that are developing from the domain-specific contexts in which they are situated.
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
The origins of intelligence in children.
Piaget, J. (1952) · doi:10.1037/11494-000 · Cited by 10,687
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
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
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
Self-citationEducation and thinking: The role of knowledge.
Glaser, R. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.2.93 · Cited by 1,272 · cited 1×
“We regard scientific reasoning as entailing the coordination of existing theories with new evidence bearing on them or, in the language used by Klahr and Dunbar (1988), the coordination of two "problem spaces.”
MethodDual space search during scientific reasoning
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1 · Cited by 1,058
Children and adults as intuitive scientists.
Kuhn, D. (1989) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.4.674 · Cited by 774
Self-citationBelief 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
Self-citation
Cited by
Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543068002179 · Cited by 1,593
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf02212307 · Cited by 1,443
Promoting General Metacognitive Awareness
Schraw, G. (2001) · Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2243-8_1 · Cited by 1,245
Promoting general metacognitive awareness
Schraw, G. (1998) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1023/a:1003044231033 · Cited by 1,088
Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking
Kuhn, D. (1993) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730770306 · Cited by 916
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M.
- Venue
- Cognition and Instruction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1992-12
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 285-327
- ISSN
- 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-690X
- OpenAlex
- W1991379244
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 40.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Cross-Domain Development of Scientific Reasoning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s1532690xci0904_1
- The paper
- Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-Domain Development of Scientific Reasoning. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0904_1
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.
