%0 Journal Article %1 893 %A Okada, T. %A Simon, H. A. %D 1997 %J Cognitive Science %K biology, cognition, collaborative-learning experimentation, file-import-09-02-13, science, self-explanations %N (c) 2002 Inst. For Sci. Info %P 109-146+ %T Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain %U http://linkseeker.lanl.gov/stanford?genre=article&\#38;issn=0364-0213&\#38;date=1997&\#38;volume=21&\#38;issue=2&\#38;spage=109&\#38;atitle=Collaborative\%20discovery\%20in\%20a\%20scientific\%20domain&\#38;aulast=Okada&\#38;auinit=T %V 21 %X 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).

@article{893, abstract = {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).}, added-at = {2009-02-24T19:22:48.000+0100}, author = {Okada, T. and Simon, H. A.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/22019c4e711f5f9ac9d3122d66d91ec0f/clachapelle}, citeulike-article-id = {4046163}, interhash = {09ef8817558854920d9e0f85d9120cf7}, intrahash = {2019c4e711f5f9ac9d3122d66d91ec0f}, journal = {Cognitive Science}, keywords = {biology, cognition, collaborative-learning experimentation, file-import-09-02-13, science, self-explanations}, number = {(c) 2002 Inst. For Sci. Info}, pages = {109-146+}, posted-at = {2009-02-13 21:45:44}, priority = {2}, timestamp = {2009-02-24T19:49:32.000+0100}, title = {Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain}, url = {http://linkseeker.lanl.gov/stanford?genre=article\&\#38;issn=0364-0213\&\#38;date=1997\&\#38;volume=21\&\#38;issue=2\&\#38;spage=109\&\#38;atitle=Collaborative\%20discovery\%20in\%20a\%20scientific\%20domain\&\#38;aulast=Okada\&\#38;auinit=T}, volume = 21, year = 1997 }