Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking

Science Education

Volumn 93, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 875-891

  Russ, Rosemary S ^a   Coffey, Janet E ^b   Hammer, David ^c   Hutchison, Paul ^d  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c Bldg 142   (United States)

^d GRINNELL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 71749086013     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20320     Document Type: Article

References (40)

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. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421 - 441.
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7 - 74.
4. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Coffey, J. E. (2003). Involving students in assessment. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 75 - 88). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
6. Craver, C. F. (2002). Interlevel experiments and multilevel mechanisms in the neuroscience of memory. Philosophy of Science (Supplement), 69, S83-S97.
7. Darden, L. (1998). The nature of scientific inquiry. Retrieved October 31, 2005 from http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/LDarden/sciinq/index.html
8. Darden, L. (2002). Strategies for discovering mechanisms: Schema instantiation, modular subassembly, forward/backward chaining. Philosophy of Science (Supplement), 69, S354-S365.
9. 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.
10. Darling Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.
11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287 - 312.
12. Glennan, S. S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erktenntnis, 44, 49 - 71.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Hammer, D. (1995). Student inquiry in a physics class discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 401 - 430.
16. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169 - 190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72(1), 19 - 40.
18. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674 - 689.
20. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371 - 387). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
22. Machamer, P. (2004). Activities and causation: The metaphysics and epistemology of mechanisms. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18(1), 27 - 39.
23. Machamer, P., Darden, D., & Craver, C. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1 - 25.
24. 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.
25. National Research Council (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
26. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Committee on Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry. Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education.
27. National Research Council. (2001a). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J. Pelligrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
28. National Research Council. (2001b). Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Committee on Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards. J. Myron Atkin, P. Black, & J. Coffey (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
29. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. R. A. Duschl,H.A. Schweingruber,&A.W. Shouse (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
30. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3 - 45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
31. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185 - 204.
32. Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry:A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92, 499 - 525.
33. Salmon,W. C. (1978).Why ask, "Why?" ? An inquiry concerning scientific explanation. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, 51, 683 - 705.
34. Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
35. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In National Research Council (Ed.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 515 - 566). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
36. Tabery, J.G. (2004). Synthesizing activities and interactions in the concept of a mechanism. Philosophy of Science, 71, 1 - 15.
37. Teeter Dobbs, B. J. & Jacob, M. C. (1995). Newton and the culture of Newtonianism. Atlantic Highlands: NJ: Humanities Press International.
38. Thagard, P. (1998). Explaining disease: Correlations, causes, and mechanisms. Minds and Machines, 8, 61 - 78.
39. Westfall, R. S. (1986). The construction of modern science: Mechanisms and mechanics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941 - 967.