Summarize result (10...

Summarize result (0%)

Summarize result (100%) What does it mean to think scientifically? We might label a preschooler’s curious question, a high school student’s answer on a physics exam, and scientists’ progress in mapping the human genome as instances of scientific thinking. But if we are to classify such disparate phenomena under a single heading, it is essential that we specify what it is that they have in common. Alternatively, we might define scientific thinking narrowly, as a specific reasoning strategy (such as the control of variables strategy that has dominated research on the development of scientific thinking), or as the thinking characteristic of a narrow population (scientific thinking is what scientists do). But to do so is to seriously limit the interest and significance the phenomenon holds. This chapter begins, then, with an attempt to define scientific thinking in an inclusive way that encompasses not only the preceding examples, but numerous other instances of thinking, including many not typically associated with science. What is Scientific Thinking and Reasoning? There are two kinds of thinking we call “scientific.” The first, and most obvious, is thinking about the content of science. People are engaged in scientific thinking when

they are reasoning about such entities and processes as force, mass, energy, equilibrium,

magnetism, atoms, photosynthesis, radiation, geology, or astrophysics (and, of course, cognitive psychology!). The second kind of scientific thinking includes the set of reasoning processes that permeate the field of science: induction, deduction, experimental

design, causal reasoning, concept formation, hypothesis testing, and so on. Definition of Scientific Thinking Scientific thinking is the conscious synthesis of facts or data used to reach a meaningful term that produces something that makes sense. It focuses on answers to “why” and “how” questions. Productivity of something serves as a result of scientific thinking. All scientists are proof the mind is composed of scientific thinking. Scientific discoveries are the result of scientific thinking strategies. Production of information and

communication, technology and machines are all examples that serve as outputs to scientific thinking. Galileo Galilei, Albert Einstein, Newton, C. V. Raman, and Aryabhata

all became well-known scientists through their scientific thinking and restless experimenting approaches. The definition of scientific thinking adopted in this chapter is knowledge-seeking. This definition encompasses any instance of purposeful thinking that has the objective of

enhancing the seeker’s knowledge. One consequence that follows from this definition is that scientific thinking is something people do, not something they have. The latter we

will refer to as scientific understanding. When conditions are favorable, the process of

scientific thinking may lead to scientific understanding as its product. Indeed, it is the

desire for scientific understanding -- for explanation -- that drives the process of scientific thinking. Scientific thinking is a type of knowledge seeking involving intentional information seeking, including asking questions, testing hypotheses, making observations, recognizing patterns, and making inferences. Much research indicates that children engage in this information-seeking process very early on through questioning behaviors and exploration. In fact, children are quite capable and effective in gathering needed information through their questions, and can reason about the effectiveness of questions, use probabilistic information to guide their questioning, and evaluate who they should question to get information, among other related skills. Although formal educational contexts typically give students questions to explore or steps to follow to “do science,” young children’s scientific thinking is driven by natural curiosity about the world around them, and the desire to understand it and generate their own questions about the world. Scientific thinking refers to both thinking about the content of science and the set of reasoning processes that permeate the field of science: induction, deduction, experimental design, causal reasoning, concept formation, hypothesis testing, and so on. Here we cover both the history of research on scientific thinking and the different approaches that have been used, highlighting common themes that have emerged over the past 50 years of research. Future research will focus on the collaborative aspects of scientific thinking, on effective methods for teaching science, and on the neural underpinnings of the scientific mind. Scientific thinking is the higher-order thinking skills. It is the ability of individuals to seek knowledge in inductive and deductive reasoning to think of an answer or identify and to explore the scientific examination of the facts. It may be observed, experiments to test hypotheses and to find out why a conclusion, without bias or emotion Scientific thinking is often mistaken with scientific method, which is a completely different concept. Scientific method doesn’t exist in the first place. Only scientific thinking or evaluation is feasible. It pertains to intelligently identifying a problem and making suitable decisions according to the same. It involves heavy critical thinking and systematic evaluation where each step should get you closer to the solution. The key role here is played by the mode of thinking and the knowledge domain of the individual thinker. The level of scientific thinking is aroused at different levels in children, adults and elderly people. It is known to be maximum in children and teens. Every child’s existing theory is unique and one of a kind. Their individual theories must be developed to an understandable level such that the child is capable of thinking or reflecting upon the problem and coming up with a viable solution. An individual’s interest helps them elevate their quality of thinking and the quality improves when people start taking charge of imposing intellectual standards upon themselves in order to improve themselves on their individual level of scientific thinking. It takes a set of reasoning processes that include concept formation, casual reasoning, experimentation, induction, deduction, hypothesis testing and so on. ►Phases of Scientific thinking: The following are some guidelines to train the learners to think scientifically with the fourth stages such as 1) The inquiry phase) 2) The analysis phase 3) The inference phase 4) The argument phase.

The Inquiry: when the learners face the new situation. Learners investigate the link between information and prior-knowledge, or the knowledge of existing theories. Classifying material about and how to use it. Learners also compare information between the data obtained with existing theories or prior knowledge. And the learners alsoaccess to information and the knowledge by using search engines and links. The students link case study to the situation with relevant theoretical principles. They find ways to solve the problem by comparing obtained data with the existing information. Some information is used and the rest is discarded. The learner continued to search for relevant information, until the situation can b We find that it is called the sublimation of the substance which changing from a solid to a gas, additionally to there are other substances that can be change.
The Analysis: when the learners' information from the investigation of the sources of the information in different steps. The learner take the information into consideration by comparing with empirical evidence on the issue, trying to make connections with existing knowledge of the changes in the observed phenomenon. The same thing "from the text shows that the learners can compare the empirical evidence of the situation with the theory set for discussing the phenomenon. The above information shows that students have tried to test or trial which has been linked to theories and related to a conclusion. This shows the relationship between theory and empirical evidences.
The inference: From data obtained in phase 1 and phase 2 of the analysis in the study the learner come to the conclusion from such information. As to the situation of the acid - base material. From the interviews of the learners regarding the problem of acid - base compounds are shown as the following examples of the empirical evidences: is a problem with some soft drinks that causing abdominal pain. We can study this by acid- soaking a chicken. Leave it ... for a time then examine it at the edges ...The documentary shows one which I soak them into water ... it is pale in colour ... it's not like it was at first ... but It's soft and pale. Paler even more than before... " " ... If we drink soft drinks we cannot tolerate it ... because of acid in the stomach. The text shows the principles of learning theory, regarding the acid - base material with empirical evidence obtained from experiments which were available. The relationship of the principles, and theories led to the conclusions of the study.
The argument: A discussion of the reliable or accurate reasons of the learners. When we have information from reliable experiments, we just need a friend to confirm our confidence in what we describe. The message shows that learners are able to explain why and indicate that the source and reliability of such reasons. ►Scientific Thinking in Children Well before their first birthday, children appear to know several fundamental facts about the physical world. For example, studies with infants show that they behave as if they understand that solid objects endure over time (e.g., they don’t just disappear and reappear, they cannot move through each other, and they move as a result of collisions with other solid objects or the force of gravity. And even 6-month-olds are able to predict the future location of a moving object that they are attempting to grasp. In addition, they appear to be able to make nontrivial inferences about causes and their effects. The similarities between children’s thinking and scientists’ thinking have an inherent allure and an internal contradiction. ! e allure resides in the enthusiastic wonder and openness with which both children and scientists approach the world around them. The paradox comes from the fact that different investigators of children’s thinking have reached diametrically opposing conclusions about just how “scientific” children’s thinking really is. Some claim support for the “child as a scientist” position, while others offer serious challenges to this view. Such fundamentally incommensurate conclusions suggest that this very field— children’s scientific thinking—is ripe for a conceptual revolution! A recent comprehensive review of what children bring to their science classes offers the following concise summary of the extensive developmental and educational research literature on children’s scientific thinking: • Children entering school already have substantial knowledge of the natural world, much of which is implicit. • What children are capable of at a particular age is the result of a complex interplay among maturation, experience, and instruction. What is developmentally appropriate is not a simple function of age or grade, but rather is largely contingent on children’s prior opportunities to learn. • Students’ knowledge and experience play a critical role in their science learning, influencing four aspects of science understanding, including (a) knowing, using, and interpreting scientific explanations of the natural world; (b) generating and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations, (c) understanding how scientific knowledge is developed in the scientific community, and (d) participating in scientific practices and discourse. • Students learn science by actively engaging in the practices of science. In the previous section of this article we discussed conceptual change with respect to scientific fields and undergraduate science students. However, the idea that children undergo radical conceptual change in which old “theories” need to be overthrown and reorganized has been a central topic in understanding changes in scientific thinking in both children and across the life span. This radical conceptual change is thought to be necessary for acquiring many new concepts in physics and is regarded as the major source of difficulty for students. The factors that are at the root of this conceptual shift view have been difficult to determine, although there have been a number of studies in cognitive development, in the history of science, and in physics education that give detailed accounts of the changes in knowledge representation that occur while people switch from one way of representing scientific knowledge to another.Summarize result (100%) What does it mean to think scientifically? We might label a preschooler’s curious question, a high school student’s answer on a physics exam, and scientists’ progress in mapping the human genome as instances of scientific thinking. But if we are to classify such disparate phenomena under a single heading, it is essential that we specify what it is that they have in common. Alternatively, we might define scientific thinking narrowly, as a specific reasoning strategy (such as the control of variables strategy that has dominated research on the development of scientific thinking), or as the thinking characteristic of a narrow population (scientific thinking is what scientists do). But to do so is to seriously limit the interest and significance the phenomenon holds. This chapter begins, then, with an attempt to define scientific thinking in an inclusive way that encompasses not only the preceding examples, but numerous other instances of thinking, including many not typically associated with science. What is Scientific Thinking and Reasoning? There are two kinds of thinking we call “scientific.” The first, and most obvious, is thinking about the content of science. People are engaged in scientific thinking when

they are reasoning about such entities and processes as force, mass, energy, equilibrium,

communication, technology and machines are all examples that serve as outputs to scientific thinking. Galileo Galilei, Albert Einstein, Newton, C. V. Raman, and Aryabhata

enhancing the seeker’s knowledge. One consequence that follows from this definition is that scientific thinking is something people do, not something they have. The latter we

will refer to as scientific understanding. When conditions are favorable, the process of

scientific thinking may lead to scientific understanding as its product. Indeed, it is the

The Inquiry: when the learners face the new situation. Learners investigate the link between information and prior-knowledge, or the knowledge of existing theories. Classifying material about and how to use it. Learners also compare information between the data obtained with existing theories or prior knowledge. And the learners alsoaccess to information and the knowledge by using search engines and links. The students link case study to the situation with relevant theoretical principles. They find ways to solve the problem by comparing obtained data with the existing information. Some information is used and the rest is discarded. The learner continued to search for relevant information, until the situation can b We find that it is called the sublimation of the substance which changing from a solid to a gas, additionally to there are other substances that can be change.
The Analysis: when the learners' information from the investigation of the sources of the information in different steps. The learner take the information into consideration by comparing with empirical evidence on the issue, trying to make connections with existing knowledge of the changes in the observed phenomenon. The same thing "from the text shows that the learners can compare the empirical evidence of the situation with the theory set for discussing the phenomenon. The above information shows that students have tried to test or trial which has been linked to theories and related to a conclusion. This shows the relationship between theory and empirical evidences.
The inference: From data obtained in phase 1 and phase 2 of the analysis in the study the learner come to the conclusion from such information. As to the situation of the acid - base material. From the interviews of the learners regarding the problem of acid - base compounds are shown as the following examples of the empirical evidences: is a problem with some soft drinks that causing abdominal pain. We can study this by acid- soaking a chicken. Leave it ... for a time then examine it at the edges ...The documentary shows one which I soak them into water ... it is pale in colour ... it's not like it was at first ... but It's soft and pale. Paler even more than before... " " ... If we drink soft drinks we cannot tolerate it ... because of acid in the stomach. The text shows the principles of learning theory, regarding the acid - base material with empirical evidence obtained from experiments which were available. The relationship of the principles, and theories led to the conclusions of the study.
The argument: A discussion of the reliable or accurate reasons of the learners. When we have information from reliable experiments, we just need a friend to confirm our confidence in what we describe. The message shows that learners are able to explain why and indicate that the source and reliability of such reasons. ►Scientific Thinking in Children Well before their first birthday, children appear to know several fundamental facts about the physical world. For example, studies with infants show that they behave as if they understand that solid objects endure over time (e.g., they don’t just disappear and reappear, they cannot move through each other, and they move as a result of collisions with other solid objects or the force of gravity. And even 6-month-olds are able to predict the future location of a moving object that they are attempting to grasp. In addition, they appear to be able to make nontrivial inferences about causes and their effects. The similarities between children’s thinking and scientists’ thinking have an inherent allure and an internal contradiction. ! e allure resides in the enthusiastic wonder and openness with which both children and scientists approach the world around them. The paradox comes from the fact that different investigators of children’s thinking have reached diametrically opposing conclusions about just how “scientific” children’s thinking really is. Some claim support for the “child as a scientist” position, while others offer serious challenges to this view. Such fundamentally incommensurate conclusions suggest that this very field— children’s scientific thinking—is ripe for a conceptual revolution! A recent comprehensive review of what children bring to their science classes offers the following concise summary of the extensive developmental and educational research literature on children’s scientific thinking: • Children entering school already have substantial knowledge of the natural world, much of which is implicit. • What children are capable of at a particular age is the result of a complex interplay among maturation, experience, and instruction. What is developmentally appropriate is not a simple function of age or grade, but rather is largely contingent on children’s prior opportunities to learn. • Students’ knowledge and experience play a critical role in their science learning, influencing four aspects of science understanding, including (a) knowing, using, and interpreting scientific explanations of the natural world; (b) generating and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations, (c) understanding how scientific knowledge is developed in the scientific community, and (d) participating in scientific practices and discourse. • Students learn science by actively engaging in the practices of science. In the previous section of this article we discussed conceptual change with respect to scientific fields and undergraduate science students. However, the idea that children undergo radical conceptual change in which old “theories” need to be overthrown and reorganized has been a central topic in understanding changes in scientific thinking in both children and across the life span. This radical conceptual change is thought to be necessary for acquiring many new concepts in physics and is regarded as the major source of difficulty for students. The factors that are at the root of this conceptual shift view have been difficult to determine, although there have been a number of studies in cognitive development, in the history of science, and in physics education that give detailed accounts of the changes in knowledge representation that occur while people switch from one way of representing scientific knowledge to another.

Original text

Summarize result (100%)
What does it mean to think scientifically? We might label a preschooler’s curious
question, a high school student’s answer on a physics exam, and scientists’ progress in
mapping the human genome as instances of scientific thinking. But if we are to classify
such disparate phenomena under a single heading, it is essential that we specify what it is
that they have in common. Alternatively, we might define scientific thinking narrowly, as
a specific reasoning strategy (such as the control of variables strategy that has dominated
research on the development of scientific thinking), or as the thinking characteristic of a
narrow population (scientific thinking is what scientists do). But to do so is to seriously
limit the interest and significance the phenomenon holds. This chapter begins, then, with
an attempt to define scientific thinking in an inclusive way that encompasses not only the
preceding examples, but numerous other instances of thinking, including many not
typically associated with science.
What is Scientific Thinking and Reasoning?
There are two kinds of thinking we call “scientific.” The first, and most obvious,
is thinking about the content of science. People are engaged in scientific thinking when

they are reasoning about such entities and processes as force, mass, energy, equilibrium,

magnetism, atoms, photosynthesis, radiation, geology, or astrophysics (and, of course,
cognitive psychology!). The second kind of scientific thinking includes the set of
reasoning processes that permeate the field of science: induction, deduction, experimental

design, causal reasoning, concept formation, hypothesis testing, and so on.
Definition of Scientific Thinking
Scientific thinking is the conscious synthesis of facts or data used to reach a
meaningful term that produces something that makes sense. It focuses on answers to
“why” and “how” questions. Productivity of something serves as a result of scientific
thinking. All scientists are proof the mind is composed of scientific thinking. Scientific
discoveries are the result of scientific thinking strategies. Production of information and

communication, technology and machines are all examples that serve as outputs to
scientific thinking. Galileo Galilei, Albert Einstein, Newton, C. V. Raman, and Aryabhata

all became well-known scientists through their scientific thinking and restless
experimenting approaches.
The definition of scientific thinking adopted in this chapter is knowledge-seeking.
This definition encompasses any instance of purposeful thinking that has the objective of

enhancing the seeker’s knowledge. One consequence that follows from this definition is
that scientific thinking is something people do, not something they have. The latter we

will refer to as scientific understanding. When conditions are favorable, the process of

scientific thinking may lead to scientific understanding as its product. Indeed, it is the

desire for scientific understanding -- for explanation -- that drives the process of scientific
thinking.
Scientific thinking is a type of knowledge seeking involving intentional
information seeking, including asking questions, testing hypotheses, making
observations, recognizing patterns, and making inferences. Much research indicates that
children engage in this information-seeking process very early on through questioning
behaviors and exploration. In fact, children are quite capable and effective in gathering
needed information through their questions, and can reason about the effectiveness of
questions, use probabilistic information to guide their questioning, and evaluate who they
should question to get information, among other related skills. Although formal
educational contexts typically give students questions to explore or steps to follow to “do
science,” young children’s scientific thinking is driven by natural curiosity about the
world around them, and the desire to understand it and generate their own questions
about the world.
Scientific thinking refers to both thinking about the content of science and the set
of reasoning processes that permeate the field of science: induction, deduction,
experimental design, causal reasoning, concept formation, hypothesis testing, and so on.
Here we cover both the history of research on scientific thinking and the different
approaches that have been used, highlighting common themes that have emerged over the
past 50 years of research. Future research will focus on the collaborative aspects of
scientific thinking, on effective methods for teaching science, and on the neural
underpinnings of the scientific mind.
Scientific thinking is the higher-order thinking skills. It is the ability of individuals
to seek knowledge in inductive and deductive reasoning to think of an answer or identify
and to explore the scientific examination of the facts. It may be observed, experiments to
test hypotheses and to find out why a conclusion, without bias or emotion
Scientific thinking is often mistaken with scientific method, which is a completely
different concept. Scientific method doesn’t exist in the first place. Only scientific
thinking or evaluation is feasible. It pertains to intelligently identifying a problem and
making suitable decisions according to the same. It involves heavy critical thinking and
systematic evaluation where each step should get you closer to the solution. The key role
here is played by the mode of thinking and the knowledge domain of the individual
thinker.
The level of scientific thinking is aroused at different levels in children, adults and
elderly people. It is known to be maximum in children and teens. Every child’s existing
theory is unique and one of a kind. Their individual theories must be developed to an
understandable level such that the child is capable of thinking or reflecting upon the
problem and coming up with a viable solution. An individual’s interest helps them
elevate their quality of thinking and the quality improves when people start taking charge
of imposing intellectual standards upon themselves in order to improve themselves on
their individual level of scientific thinking. It takes a set of reasoning processes that
include concept formation, casual reasoning, experimentation, induction, deduction,
hypothesis testing and so on.
►Phases of Scientific thinking:
The following are some guidelines to train the learners to think scientifically with
the fourth stages such as 1) The inquiry phase) 2) The analysis phase 3) The inference
phase 4) The argument phase.

The Inquiry: when the learners face the new situation. Learners investigate the link
between information and prior-knowledge, or the knowledge of existing theories.
Classifying material about and how to use it. Learners also compare information between
the data obtained with existing theories or prior knowledge. And the learners alsoaccess to information and the knowledge by using search engines and links. The students
link case study to the situation with relevant theoretical principles. They find ways to
solve the problem by comparing obtained data with the existing information. Some
information is used and the rest is discarded. The learner continued to search for relevant
information, until the situation can b We find that it is called the sublimation of the
substance which changing from a solid to a gas, additionally to there are other substances
that can be change.

The Analysis: when the learners' information from the investigation of the sources of
the information in different steps. The learner take the information into consideration by
comparing with empirical evidence on the issue, trying to make connections with existing
knowledge of the changes in the observed phenomenon. The same thing "from the text
shows that the learners can compare the empirical evidence of the situation with the
theory set for discussing the phenomenon. The above information shows that students
have tried to test or trial which has been linked to theories and related to a conclusion.
This shows the relationship between theory and empirical evidences.

The inference: From data obtained in phase 1 and phase 2 of the analysis in the
study the learner come to the conclusion from such information. As to the situation of the
acid - base material. From the interviews of the learners regarding the problem of acid -
base compounds are shown as the following examples of the empirical evidences: is a
problem with some soft drinks that causing abdominal pain. We can study this by acid-
soaking a chicken. Leave it ... for a time then examine it at the edges ...The documentary
shows one which I soak them into water ... it is pale in colour ... it's not like it was at first
... but It's soft and pale. Paler even more than before... " " ... If we drink soft drinks we
cannot tolerate it ... because of acid in the stomach. The text shows the principles of
learning theory, regarding the acid - base material with empirical evidence obtained from experiments which were available. The relationship of the principles, and theories led to
the conclusions of the study.

The argument: A discussion of the reliable or accurate reasons of the learners.
When we have information from reliable experiments, we just need a friend to
confirm our confidence in what we describe. The message shows that learners are
able to explain why and indicate that the source and reliability of such reasons.
►Scientific Thinking in Children
Well before their first birthday, children appear to know several fundamental facts
about the physical world. For example, studies with infants show that they behave as if
they understand that solid objects endure over time (e.g., they don’t just disappear and
reappear, they cannot move through each other, and they move as a result of collisions
with other solid objects or the force of gravity. And even 6-month-olds are able to predict
the future location of a moving object that they are attempting to grasp.
In addition, they appear to be able to make nontrivial inferences about causes and
their effects. The similarities between children’s thinking and scientists’ thinking have an
inherent allure and an internal contradiction. ! e allure resides in the enthusiastic wonder
and openness with which both children and scientists approach the world around them.
The paradox comes from the fact that different investigators of children’s thinking have
reached diametrically opposing conclusions about just how “scientific” children’s
thinking really is. Some claim support for the “child as a scientist” position, while others
offer serious challenges to this view. Such fundamentally incommensurate conclusions
suggest that this very field— children’s scientific thinking—is ripe for a conceptual revolution!
A recent comprehensive review of what children bring to their science classes
offers the following concise summary of the extensive developmental and educational
research literature on children’s scientific thinking:
• Children entering school already have substantial knowledge of the natural world,
much of which is implicit.
• What children are capable of at a particular age is the result of a complex
interplay among maturation, experience, and instruction. What is developmentally
appropriate is not a simple function of age or grade, but rather is largely contingent on
children’s prior opportunities to learn.
• Students’ knowledge and experience play a critical role in their science learning,
influencing four aspects of science understanding, including (a) knowing, using, and
interpreting scientific explanations of the natural world; (b) generating and evaluating scientific
evidence and explanations, (c) understanding how scientific knowledge is developed in the
scientific community, and (d) participating in scientific practices and discourse.
• Students learn science by actively engaging in the practices of science. In the previous
section of this article we discussed conceptual change with respect to scientific fields and
undergraduate science students. However, the idea that children undergo radical conceptual
change in which old “theories” need to be overthrown and reorganized has been a central topic
in understanding changes in scientific thinking in both children and across the life span. This
radical conceptual change is thought to be necessary for acquiring many new concepts in
physics and is regarded as the major source of difficulty for students. The factors that are at the
root of this conceptual shift view have been difficult to determine, although there have been a
number of studies in cognitive development, in the history of science, and in physics education
that give detailed accounts of the changes in knowledge representation that occur while people
switch from one way of representing scientific knowledge to another.Summarize result (100%)
What does it mean to think scientifically? We might label a preschooler’s curious
question, a high school student’s answer on a physics exam, and scientists’ progress in
mapping the human genome as instances of scientific thinking. But if we are to classify
such disparate phenomena under a single heading, it is essential that we specify what it is
that they have in common. Alternatively, we might define scientific thinking narrowly, as
a specific reasoning strategy (such as the control of variables strategy that has dominated
research on the development of scientific thinking), or as the thinking characteristic of a
narrow population (scientific thinking is what scientists do). But to do so is to seriously
limit the interest and significance the phenomenon holds. This chapter begins, then, with
an attempt to define scientific thinking in an inclusive way that encompasses not only the
preceding examples, but numerous other instances of thinking, including many not
typically associated with science.
What is Scientific Thinking and Reasoning?
There are two kinds of thinking we call “scientific.” The first, and most obvious,
is thinking about the content of science. People are engaged in scientific thinking when