Advertisement

The Learner’s Thinking

  • Keith S. Taber
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores how ‘thinking’ is best understood in the context of research into learners’ thinking. Thinking is associated with processing within a person’s cognitive system, much of which will not be under direct conscious control or even open to introspection. The importance of much preconscious thinking to scientific work and to learning is acknowledged. Terms such as creative thinking, logical thinking, problem-solving and metacognition are considered from the modelling perspective adopted in the book; and the notion of scientific thinking when it is adopted in relation to the wider scientific community is discussed. The limitations of computing metaphors for thinking are explored considering how cognition may be best understood as an emergent property of a system that has evolved iteratively under severe constraints, and in particular in the likelihood of much processing in the brain relying upon synaptic networks tuned in response to the individual's experience of the world. The chapter closes with a review of the relationships between key terms (ideas, perception, memory, understanding and thinking) explored in this part of the book.

Keywords

Science Education Cognitive System Creative Thinking Visual Working Memory Conscious Awareness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aaron, R. I. (1971). Knowing and the function of reason. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderberg, E. (2000). Word meaning and conceptions. An empirical study of relationships between students’ thinking and use of language when reasoning about a problem. Instructional Science, 28, 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839. doi: 10.1038/nrn1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beatty, J., Rasmussen, N., & Roll-Hansen, N. (2002). Untangling the McClintock myths. Metascience, 11(3), 280–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonatti, L. (1994). Why should we abandon the mental logic hypothesis? Cognition, 50(1–3), 17–39. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90019-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669. doi: 10.1002/sce.20449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, R., & McNeill, D. (1966/1976). The ‘tip-of-the-tongue’ phenomenon. In J. M. Gardiner (Ed.), Readings in human memory (pp. 243–255). London: Methuen & Company.Google Scholar
  9. Changeux, J.-P. (1983/1997). Neuronal man: The biology of mind (L. Garey, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Churchland, P. S. (1980). A perspective on mind-brain research. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(4), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coll, R. K., Lay, M. C., & Taylor, N. (2008). Scientists and scientific thinking: Understanding scientific thinking through an investigation of scientists views about superstitions and religious beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 197–214.Google Scholar
  12. Dunbar, K. (2001). What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
  14. Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 288–307. doi: 10.1006/ccog.2000.0447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gazzaniga, M. S., Fendrich, R., & Wessinger, C. M. (1994). Blindsight reconsidered. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(3), 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrison, A. G., & Coll, R. K. (Eds.). (2008). Using analogies in middle and secondary science classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hart, B. (1910). The conception of the subconscious. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 4(6), 351–371. doi: 10.1037/h0074022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ivić, I., Pešikan, A., & Antić, S. (2002). Active learning (2nd ed.). Belgrade, Serbia: Institute of Psychology.Google Scholar
  20. Jonassen, D. (2009). Reconciling a human cognitive architecture. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 13–33). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W H Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  22. Koestler, A. (1978/1979). Janus: A summing up. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
  23. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawson, A. E. (2010). Teaching inquiry science in middle and secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Lawson, A. E., & Wollman, W. T. (1976). Encouraging the transition from concrete to formal cognitive functioning-an experiment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13(5), 413–430. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660130505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Child psychology in practice 6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153–196). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Lindahl, M. G. (2010). Of pigs and men: Understanding students’ reasoning about the use of pigs as donors for xenotransplantation. Science Education, 19(9), 867–894. doi: 10.1007/s11191-010-9238-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z., & Braund, M. (2009). Gauging students’ untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: A South African case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2143–2166. doi: 10.1080/09500690903331886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller, A. I. (1986). Imagery in scientific thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Muldoon, C. A. (2006). Shall I compare thee to a pressure wave?: Visualisation, analogy, insight and communication in physics. Ph.D., University of Bath, Bath.Google Scholar
  31. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parkin, A. J. (1987). Memory & amnesia: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Parkin, A. J. (1993). Memory: Phenomena, experiment and theory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  35. Phang, F. A. (2009). The patterns of physics problem-solving from the perspective of metacognition. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, UK: Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Rothenberg, A. (1995). Creative cognitive processes in Kekulé’s discovery of the structure of the benzene molecule. The American Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sagan, C. (1990). Why we need to understand science. The Skeptical Inquirer, 14(3), 263–269.Google Scholar
  38. Sijuwade, P. O. (2007). Recent trends in the philosophy of science: Lessons for sociology. Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 53–64.Google Scholar
  39. Taber, K. S. (2008b). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science Education, 17(2–3), 179–218. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9056-4.Google Scholar
  40. Taber, K. S. (2011). The natures of scientific thinking: Creativity as the handmaiden to logic in the development of public and personal knowledge. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in the nature of science research – Concepts and methodologies (pp. 51–74). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Taber, K. S. (Forthcoming). Methodological issues in science education research: A perspective from the philosophy of science. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education. Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Taber, K. S., & Bricheno, P. A. (2009). Coordinating procedural and conceptual knowledge to make sense of word equations: Understanding the complexity of a ‘simple’ completion task at the learner’s resolution. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2021–2055. doi: 10.1080/09500690802326243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomson, R. (1959). The psychology of thinking. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  44. Tsaparlis, G. (1994). Blocking mechanisms in problem solving from the Pascual-Leone’s M-space perspective. In H.-J. Schmidt (Ed.), Problem solving and misconceptions in chemistry and physics (pp. 211–226). Dortmund, Germany: International Council of Associations for Science Education.Google Scholar
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. White, R. T., & Mitchell, I. J. (1994). Metacognition and the quality of learning. Studies in Science Education, 23, 21–37. doi: 10.1080/03057269408560028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wong, E. D. (1993). Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1259–1272. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660301008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith S. Taber
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations