{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011246485473289597, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.552147239263804, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Induction as an empirical problem: How students generalize during practical work

We examined how university students made generalizations when making morphological observations of insects. Five groups of two or three students working together were audio recorded. The results were analysed by an approach based on the work of Wittgenstein and on a pragmatic and sociocultural perspective. Results showed that students rarely made generalizations in terms of universal statements and they did not use induction or produced hypotheses for testing in an analytic philosophical sense. The few generalizations they made of this kind were taken from zoological authorities like textbooks or lectures. However, students used induction when in more familiar contexts. Moreover, when generalizations were analysed in the sense of Dewey, it became evident that students are fully capable of making generalizations by transferring meaning from one experience to another. The implications of these results for using induction and hypotheses testing in instruction are discussed.