✦ LIBER ✦

Response to Dr. Oleson's comments

✍ Scribed by Daniel S. Kapp; Todd A. Barnett; Richard S. Cox; Eric R. Lee; Allen Lohrbach; Peter Fessenden

Publisher: Elsevier Science
Year: 1991
Tongue: English
Weight: 141 KB
Volume: 20
Category: Article
ISSN: 0360-3016
DOI: 10.1016/0360-3016(91)90219-t

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES

Response to Dr. Oleson

✍ Daniel S. Kapp 📂 Article 📅 1992 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 170 KB

Response to oleson

✍ Helen Fosmire; Kullervo Hynynen 📂 Article 📅 1993 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 173 KB

Response to Dr. M. Castañs comments

✍ S.M. Jeter 📂 Article 📅 1983 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 97 KB

Response to comments by Dr. Bernhard Lau

✍ U.R. Lenel 📂 Article 📅 1984 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 95 KB

Response to Rankin's comments

✍ Gaalen L. Erickson; Jazlin V. Ebenezer 📂 Article 📅 1997 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 16 KB 👁 1 views

Rankin's comments on our article, "Chemistry Students' Conceptions of Solubility: A Phenomenography," are organized around three very different concerns which he has described in somewhat succinct and, we might add, provocative subheadings of: "Nothing New," Two Different Perspectives of Conceptions

Response to Shafer’s comments

✍ Kevin S. Van Horn 📂 Article 📅 2004 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 147 KB

I'd like to thank Professor Shafer for the historical background and additional perspective he has provided. I have only a few comments in response. I will proceed from less to more substantive issues. 1. Use of the word ''plausibility''