The Experts below are selected from a list of 9408 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Paul Chase - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Understanding Scientific Methodology in the Historical and Experimental Sciences via Language Analysis
Science & Education, 2008Co-Authors: Jeff Dodick, Shlomo Argamon, Paul ChaseAbstract:A key focus of current science education reforms involves developing inquiry-based learning materials. However, without an understanding of how working scientists actually do science, such learning materials cannot be properly developed. Until now, research on Scientific reasoning has focused on cognitive studies of individual Scientific fields. However, the question remains as to whether scientists in different fields fundamentally rely on different methodologies. Although many philosophers and historians of science do indeed assert that there is no single monolithic Scientific method, this has never been tested empirically. We therefore approach this problem by analyzing patterns of language used by scientists in their published work. Our results demonstrate systematic variation in language use between types of science that are thought to differ in their characteristic methodologies. The features of language use that were found correspond closely to a proposed distinction between Experimental Sciences (e.g., chemistry) and Historical Sciences (e.g., paleontology); thus, different underlying rhetorical and conceptual mechanisms likely operate for Scientific reasoning and communication in different contexts.
Jeff Dodick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Understanding Scientific Methodology in the Historical and Experimental Sciences via Language Analysis
Science & Education, 2008Co-Authors: Jeff Dodick, Shlomo Argamon, Paul ChaseAbstract:A key focus of current science education reforms involves developing inquiry-based learning materials. However, without an understanding of how working scientists actually do science, such learning materials cannot be properly developed. Until now, research on Scientific reasoning has focused on cognitive studies of individual Scientific fields. However, the question remains as to whether scientists in different fields fundamentally rely on different methodologies. Although many philosophers and historians of science do indeed assert that there is no single monolithic Scientific method, this has never been tested empirically. We therefore approach this problem by analyzing patterns of language used by scientists in their published work. Our results demonstrate systematic variation in language use between types of science that are thought to differ in their characteristic methodologies. The features of language use that were found correspond closely to a proposed distinction between Experimental Sciences (e.g., chemistry) and Historical Sciences (e.g., paleontology); thus, different underlying rhetorical and conceptual mechanisms likely operate for Scientific reasoning and communication in different contexts.
-
language use reflects Scientific Methodology a corpus based study of peer reviewed journal articles
Scientometrics, 2008Co-Authors: Shlomo Argamon, Jeff Dodick, Paul J ChaseAbstract:Abstract Recently, philosophers of science have argued that the epistemological requirements of different Scientific fields lead necessarily to differences in Scientific method. In this paper, we examine possible variation in how language is used in peer-reviewed journal articles from various fields to see if features of such variation may help to elucidate and support claims of methodological variation among the sciences. We hypothesize that significant methodological differences will be reflected in related differences in scientists’ language style. This paper reports a corpus-based study of peer-reviewed articles from twelve separate journals in six fields of experimental and historical sciences. Machine learning methods were applied to compare the discourse styles of articles in different fields, based on easily-extracted linguistic features of the text. Features included function word frequencies, as used often in computational stylistics, as well as lexical features based on systemic functional lin...
Ian C Binns - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
representation of Scientific Methodology in secondary science textbooks
Science Education, 2015Co-Authors: Ian C Binns, Randy L BellAbstract:This study explored how eight widely used secondary science textbooks described Scientific Methodology and to what degree the textbooks’ examples and investigations were consistent with this description. Data consisted of all text from student and teacher editions that referred to Scientific Methodology and all investigations. Analysis used an ethnographic content analysis approach. Results indicated that all eight textbooks presented mixed views of Scientific Methodology in their initial descriptions. Five textbooks emphasized the stereotypical “Scientific method,” while the other three placed more emphasis on the more appropriate view that scientists use a variety of methods when conducting investigations. Results also revealed that the initial descriptions, examples, and investigations were inconsistent in six of the eight textbooks. These findings suggest that compared to earlier investigations, textbooks have somewhat broadened their explicit descriptions of Scientific Methodology, but continue to implicitly present a more narrow and traditional view through text and investigations. This inconsistency is likely to lead to confusion as students try to make sense of the richness and complexity of ways that scientists construct knowledge.
-
a qualitative method to determine how textbooks portray Scientific Methodology
2013Co-Authors: Ian C BinnsAbstract:One key aspect of Scientific literacy is to have a clear understanding of how scientists work. Understanding how scientists work, or Scientific Methodology, is an essential part of Scientific literacy and the public understanding of science in general. Research indicates that a large majority of Americans do not understand how scientists work. Some argue that science textbooks are one source of this misunderstanding. Although it is impossible to attribute the public’s inaccurate views of Scientific Methodology to only textbooks, textbooks still serve as a resource for the standard science classroom. Several studies have looked at how science textbooks represent the nature of science and, more specifically, Scientific Methodology. However, the majority of this research has utilized quantitative methods for their analyses. In other words, much of this research tends to focus on whether, not how, textbooks present Scientific Methodology. To address this gap in the literature, this study developed a qualitative method to evaluate how textbooks present Scientific Methodology. In this chapter, I describe the methods used to develop an instrument to look at the quality of a textbook’s presentation of Scientific Methodology.
Alvan R Feinstein - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Scientific Methodology in clinical medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine, 2020Co-Authors: Alvan R FeinsteinAbstract:Excerpt The following paper is the last of four parts of Dr. Feinstein's cogent analysis of Scientific Methodology in clinical science. The preceding parts appeared in the September, October, and N...
-
Scientific Methodology in Clinical Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine, 2020Co-Authors: Alvan R FeinsteinAbstract:Excerpt The following paper is the first of four parts of Dr. Feinstein's cogent analysis of Scientific Methodology in clinical medicine. The subsequent parts will appear in consecutive issues of t...
Randy L Bell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
representation of Scientific Methodology in secondary science textbooks
Science Education, 2015Co-Authors: Ian C Binns, Randy L BellAbstract:This study explored how eight widely used secondary science textbooks described Scientific Methodology and to what degree the textbooks’ examples and investigations were consistent with this description. Data consisted of all text from student and teacher editions that referred to Scientific Methodology and all investigations. Analysis used an ethnographic content analysis approach. Results indicated that all eight textbooks presented mixed views of Scientific Methodology in their initial descriptions. Five textbooks emphasized the stereotypical “Scientific method,” while the other three placed more emphasis on the more appropriate view that scientists use a variety of methods when conducting investigations. Results also revealed that the initial descriptions, examples, and investigations were inconsistent in six of the eight textbooks. These findings suggest that compared to earlier investigations, textbooks have somewhat broadened their explicit descriptions of Scientific Methodology, but continue to implicitly present a more narrow and traditional view through text and investigations. This inconsistency is likely to lead to confusion as students try to make sense of the richness and complexity of ways that scientists construct knowledge.
