WPC 2 a B N V Z Times Roman Courier Bold 3| x ^2CRdd CCCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqY zo CN z o oz zC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8 ddddCN8dd ddY`(`l C2CC !CCC CCCCCC Cd8 Y Y Y Y Y YzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8 d d d d d d d d d d Y d d d d dod Y Y Y Y Y Y Y dzYzYzYzY d d d d d d d dC8C8C8C8 N dz8z8z8z8z8 d d d d d d C C CoNoNoNoNz8z8z8 d d d d d d dzYzYzY dz8 d CoNz8 d d d d dNF 2 dCYdddd d7> d< d < $ YYd CC dd oo CY < qqnn 8! q BBnnn q yy P q7 c1R yy X yy c n n n ~ n yRzczXzc y hCB n n d h c n nonvy XzX s h n ~XyBBnss ~ |y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~XXXXXXXyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyBBBBBBBBBBBBnnnnnnnssssssssssss z C C n ? x x x x ` K X HP LaserJet IIISi PostScript HPLAIIPO.PRS x ` K h h h h ) :MX 2 F k 9353740 Kuhn The proposed research is devoted to microgenetic study of the development of scientific thinking skills across content domains. The content extends broadly across physical and social science domains, and the work is informed by a conceptualization of scientific thinking that emphasizes its argumentive, as well as exploratory, aspect and links it to thinking more broadly conceived (Kuhn, 1993; in press). The microgenetic method (Siegler & Crowley, 1991) is used to observe patterns of development across multiple social and physical science domains during twice weekly problem sessions over a course of three months. In phase 1 subjects work alone, but in phase 2, to address the social context of learning, they work with a partner on one problem and alone on other, allowing direct comparison of the two conditions. Various components of scientific thinking activity (planning, generation of data, inference, justification) are followed, with particular attention to (a)the role of metacognition, particularly in fostering generalization, and (b)microcomputer vs. physical presentation as learning contexts. Generality of change assessed in two ways: (a)by comparison of weekly progress across domains, and (b)through the design feature of substituting new content midway through the observation, enabling assessment of the extent to which newly developed strategies are maintained when new content is introduced. The research is conducted at three age levels (preadolescence, adolescence, and young adulthood), to permit cross age comparisons both of patterns of change and overall effectiveness of the involvement in fostering changes. The broad significance of the proposed work lies in its contribution to making the enhancement of scientific thinking a meaningful goal of science education, for the social as well as physical sciences. To do so we must better understand the nature of scientific thinking skills and how they develop across broad domains of experience. Instructionally, the proposed work establishes a basis for helping students to connect scientific thinking to thinking that figures in their own lives, which may provide a key to effective science instruction. ***
