Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science

Science Education

Volumn 92, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 499-525

  Russ, Rosemary S ^a,c   Scherr, Rachel E ^a   Hammer, David ^a   Mikeska, Jamie ^b  

^a Bldg 142   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 43849112934     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20264     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Abrams, E., Southerland, S., & Cummins, C. (2001). The how's and why's of biological change: How learners neglect physical mechanisms in their search for meaning. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1271-1281.
2. Ahn, W., & Kalish, C. W. (2000). The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 199-226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Ahn, W., Kalish, C. W., Medin, D. L., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54, 299-352.
4. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Mechanisms in Biology: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421-441.
5. Brennan, R. G. & Matthews, B. W. (1989). The helix-turn-helix DNA binding motif. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 264, 1903-1906.
6. Brewer, W. F., Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (1998). Explanation in scientists and children. Minds and Machines, 8(1), 119-136.
7. Callanan, M., & Oakes, L. M. (1992). Preschoolers' questions and parents' explanations: Causal thinking in everyday activity. Cognitive Development, 7, 213-233.
8. Carey, S. (1995). On the origin of causal understanding. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 268-308). New York: Clarendon Press.
9. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120.
10. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138.
11. Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
12. Craver, C. F. (2001). Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science, 68, 53-74.
13. Craver, C. F. (2002a). Interlevel experiments, multilevel mechanisms in the neuroscience of memory. Philosophy of Science (Suppl), 69, S83-S97.
14. Craver, C. F. (2002b). Structure of scientific theories. In P. K. Machamer & M. Silberstein (Eds.), Blackwell guide to the philosophy of science (pp. 55-79). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
15. Craver, C. F., & Darden, L. (2001). Discovering mechanisms in neurobiology. In P. Machamer, R. Grush, & P. McLaughlin (Eds.), Theory and method in the neurosciences (pp. 112-137). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
16. Darden, L. (2002). Strategies for discovering mechanisms: Schema instantiation, modular subassembly, forward/backward chaining. Philosophy of Science (Suppl), 69, S354-S365.
17. Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2002). Strategies in the interfield discovery of the mechanism of protein synthesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 33, 1-28.
18. Das Gupta, P., & Bryant, P. E. (1989). Young children's causal inferences. Child Development, 60, 1138-1146.
19. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
20. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternber & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
22. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
23. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 135-153.
24. Glennan, S. S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erktenntnis, 44, 49-71.
25. Glennan, S. S. (2000). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy and Science, 69, S342-S353.
26. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.
27. Gopnik, A., & Sobel, D. M. (2000). Detecting blickets: How young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Development, 71(5), 1205-1222.
28. Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 620-629.
29. Hammer, D. (1995). Student inquiry in a physics class discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 401-430.
30. Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lectures 1-3. In E. Redish & M. Vinventini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School in Physics, Course CLVI (pp. 279-340). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.
31. Hammer, D., Russ, R., Scherr, R. E., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students' abilities. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and application (pp. 138-156). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: SensePublishers.
32. Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. (2006). Seeing the science in children's thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science. (Book and DVD) Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
33. Hempel, C. G. (1962). Explanation in science and history. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.), Frontiers of science and philosophy (Vol. 1, pp. 7-33). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
34. Hickling, A. K., & Wellman, H. M. (2001). The emergence of children's causal explanations and theories: Evidence from everyday conversations. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 668-683.
35. Keil, F., Levin, D. T., Richman, B. A., & Gutheil, G. (1999). Mechanism and explanation in the development of biological thought: The case of disease. In D. L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.), Folkbiology (pp. 285-319). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Keil, F. C., & Wilson, R. A. (2000). Explaining explanation. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. The Development of Rationality and Critical Thinking, a special issue of the Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 74-103.
39. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Lombrozo, T., & Carey, S. (2006). Functional explanation and the function of explanation. Cognition, 99, 167-204.
41. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57-68.
42. Machamer, P., Darden, D., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1-25.
43. Metz, K. E. (1991). Development of explanation: Incremental and fundamental change in children's physics knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 785-797.
44. Mikeska, J. (2006). Falling objects. In D. Hammer & E. van Zee (Eds.), Seeing the science in children's thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science (pp. 72-83). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
45. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
46. Piaget, J. (1927). The child's conception of physical causality (Marjorie Gabain, Trans.) Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
47. Rosenberg, A. (2000). Philosophy of science: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routeledge.
48. Russ, R. S. (2006). A framework for recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
49. Russ, R. S., & Hutchison, P. (2006). It's okay to be wrong: Recognizing mechanistic reasoning during student inquiry (pp. 641-647). In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Making a difference: The Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50. Salmon, W. C. (1978). Why ask, "why?"? An inquiry concerning scientific explanation. Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, 51, 683-705.
51. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102-119.
52. Shultz, T. R. (1982). Rules of causal attribution. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47(1) (Serial No. 194), 1-51.
53. Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L., & Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding students' explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Science Education, 85(4), 328-348.
55. Springer, K., & Keil, F. C. (1991). Early differentiation of causal mechanisms appropriate to biological and nonbiological kinds. Child Development, 62, 767-781.
56. Tabery, J. G. (2004). Synthesizing activities and interactions in the concept of a mechanism. Philosophy of Science, 71, 1-15.
57. Tamir, P., & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Science Education, 75(1), 57-67.
58. Thagard, P. (1998). Explaining disease: Correlations, causes, and mechanisms. Minds and Machines, 8, 61-78.
59. Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundation theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337-375.
60. Westfall, R. S. (1986). The construction of modem science: Mechanisms and mechanics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
61. White, B. (1993). Intermediate causal models: A missing link for successful science instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 177-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20(1), 99-149.