Thanks, Keith for a lengthy explanation. Now, it's my turn to match
it:)

The first topic: the concept of thinking as extracted from this Dr.
Taber's casual account of his dealings with `student focused on
chemical bonding and related concepts'. (I believe there is enough
text to make some rough conclusions)

This is the impression I've got from the description: the
researchers do not see texts (like scientific papers, books,
articles) as examples of thinking. At the same time, it will be
extremely rude if I assume that the accounts of their research
published (see Dr. Taber mentioning works done by Scott, Petri,
Niedderer, Harrison, etc.) is NOT thinking. The researchers choose
talking to their students and let me believe they want to understand
how those students think, yet they do not take written texts as
samples of thinking.
I am convinced that this very text you are reading right now is the
best possible representation of what I personally think on this
matter. I also think that "Critique of Pure Reason" by Kant
represents his (Kant's) thinking.
That was about material in focus.

Point number two.
Keith mentions: `this case gave me no reliable basis for assuming
other students understood the same way or followed the same
developments in their understanding'. My question is: how many cases
does one need to make a generalization?
J.G. Fichte (1762-1814) echoes Kant by claiming that normally humans
first make a conclusion and then only they find proofs,
justification, logic to support a hypothesis. The same fenomenon
allowed Galileo to say, that if any facts do not support his theory,
so much the worse it is for the facts (one can always find those
ones that do support).

And still: is there anyone interested to launch a study of thinking
based on texts?

I open to any suggestions,
Mike