Exploring dominant types of explanations built by general chemistry students

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 18, 2010, Pages 2393-2412

  Talanquer, Vicente ^a  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Chemistry education; Colligative properties; Emergence; Explanation; Reasoning; University

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649376715     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690903369662     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Abrams, E., Southerland, S., & Cummins, C. (2001). The how's and why's of biological change: How learners neglect physical mechanisms in search for meaning. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1271-1281.
2. Andersson, B. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils' preconceptions in science. European Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 155-171.
3. Bartov, H. (1978). Can student be taught to distinguish between teleological and causal explanations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(6), 567-572.
4. Bartov, H. (1981). Teaching students to understand the advantages and disadvantages of teleological and anthropomorphic statements in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(1), 79-86.
5. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
6. Brewer, W. F., Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (1998). Explanation in scientists and children. Minds and Machines, 8, 119-136.
7. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
8. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, P. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive science, 13, 145-182.
9. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
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. Deacon, T. W. (2003). The hierarchic logic of emergence: Untangling the interdependence of evolution and self-organization. In B. H. Weber & D. J. Depew (Eds.), Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered (pp. 273-308). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1995). Children's ideas in science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
13. Duit, R. (2007). Bibliography STCSE: Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/.
14. Friedler, Y., Amir, R., & Tamir, P. (1987). High school students' difficulties in understanding osmosis. International Journal of Science Education, 9(5), 541-551.
15. Garvin-Doxas, K., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2008). Understanding randomness and its impact on student learning: Lessons learned form building the biology concept inventory (BCI). Cell Biology Education, 7, 227-233.
16. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, Part 2: Whose voices? Whose ears? International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 187-203.
17. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Goswami, U. (2008). Cognitive development: The learning brain. New York: Psychology Press.
19. Griffin, R., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The intentional stance: Developmental and neurocognitive perspectives. In A. Brook & D. Ross (Eds.), Daniel Dennett (pp. 83-116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Grotzer, T.A. (2003). Learning to understand the forms of causality implicit in scientifically accepted explanations. Studies in Science Education, 39, 1-74.
21. Gutierrez, R., & Ogborn, J. (1992). A causal framework for analyzing alternative conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 201-220.
22. Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97-127.
23. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.
24. Jungwirth, E., (1979). Do students accept anthropomorphic and teleological formulations as scientific explanations? Journal of College Science Teaching, 8, 152-155.
25. Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanations and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227-254.
26. Kelemen, D. (1999). Functions, goals and intentions: Children's teleological reasoning about objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 461-468.
27. Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111, 138-143.
28. Klaczynski, P. A. (2004). A dual-process model of adolescent development: Implications for decision making, reasoning, and identity. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 73-123). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29. Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 464-470.
30. Lombrozo, T., & Carey, S. (2006). Functional explanation and the function of explanation. Cognition, 99, 167-204.
31. Luisi, P. L. (2002). Emergence in chemistry: Chemistry as the embodiment of emergence. Foundations of Chemistry, 4, 183-200.
32. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
33. Metz, K. (1991). Development of explanation: Incremental and fundamental change in children's physics knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 785-798.
34. nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
36. Penner, D. E. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students' understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 784-806.
37. Perkins, D.N., & Grotzer, T.A. (2005). Dimensions of causal understanding: The role of complex causal models in students' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 41, 117-166.
38. Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel micro-worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Russ, R., 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.
40. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
41. Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Helping students understand the challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 261-289.
42. Solomon, J. (1986). Children's explanations. Oxford Review of Education, 12, 41-51.
43. Taber, K. S. (2008) Conceptual resources for learning science: issues of transience and grain-size in cognition and cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1027-1053.
44. Taber, K. S., & García-Franco, A. (2009). Intuitive thinking and learning chemistry. Education in Chemistry, 46(2), 57-60.
45. Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (2000). Learners' explanations for chemical phenomena. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 1(3), 329-353.
46. Talanquer, V. (2006). Common sense chemistry: A model for understanding students' alternative conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 811-816.
47. Talanquer, V. (2007). Explanations and teleology in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 853-870.
48. Talanquer, V. (2008). Students' predictions about the sensory properties of chemical compounds: Additive versus emergent frameworks. Science Education, 92(1), 96-114.
49. Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: The case of structure of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123-2136.
50. Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in physics: The part of common sense. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
51. Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1998). Knowledge acquisition in foundational domains. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 523-573). New York: Wiley.
52. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: The Falmer Press.
53. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic system approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-19.
54. Woodruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra- and inter-group discourse: Students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27, 25-39.
55. Zuckerman, J. T. (1994). Problem solvers' conceptions about osmosis. American Biology Teacher, 56(1), 22-25.