<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Olavi Hakkarainen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Maija Ahtee</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PUPILS CONNECTING OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS IN SUCCESSIVE DEMONSTRATIONS</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Explanation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">observations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">variation theory</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">September/2010</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1405171824.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The aim of this study is to find out how pupils will connect their observa¬tions and explanations from a demonstra¬tion. Seventh graders (117) were shown successively two demonstrations about floating and sinking. Pupils’ observations and explanations were classified and compared with each other in the two demonstrations. The four observation categories were: Complete observation, incomplete observation, non-essential observation, and no observation. The five explanation categories were: Scientific explanation (density), alternative explana¬tion (weight), situational explanation (temperature), spontaneous explanation (irrelevant, insufficient, wrong), and no ex¬planation. Both the observations and the explanations were improved significantly in the second demonstration even that no teaching was done between the demon¬strations. The ways used by the seventh graders in processing their observations and explanations have been examined from the viewpoint of perceptual learning, variation theory, and the memory models in cognitive psychology.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">167-178</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Olavi Hakkarainen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Maija Ahtee</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PUPILS’ MENTAL MODELS OF A PULLEY IN BALANCE</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">conceptual change</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mental model</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physics education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">secondary school</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">weight</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">October/2005</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2016/987-1481284915.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pupils from 5th, 7th and 9th grades compared the weight of a small standard mass and a big bag hanging in a pulley at different positions in equilibrium. In all the three age groups the majority (about 70%) of the pupils stated that the lower hanging bag is heavier. Less than 15% of the pupils in the 7th and 9th grades understood that the bodies must have the same weight. Pupils’ reasoning was classified into four categories that were interpreted as mental models according to Vosniadou’s framework theory. Only about 5% of the seventh graders and 10% of the ninth graders seem to grasp the scientific model Motion that leads to the concept of gravity.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26-34</style></section></record></records></xml>