Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education

Science Education

Volumn 95, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 639-669

  Braaten, Melissa ^a   Windschitl, Mark ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958078352     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20449     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). The status of K-12 science teaching in the United States: Results from a national observation study. In D. W. Sunal & E. L. Wright (Eds.), The impact of state and national standards on K-12 science teaching (pp. 83-122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
4. Bell, P. (May 2010). Reflections on the mangle of science learning research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
5. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.
6. Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37(4). 345-363.
7. Braaten, M. (April 2010). Lenses on learning: The complex roles of tools and colleagues in a science teacher video club. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
8. Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498.
9. Cartwright, N. (1997). The truth doesn't explain much. In D. Rothbart (Ed.), Science, reason, and reality: Issues in the philosophy of science (pp. 161-166). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
10. Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
11. Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 387-427.
12. Donnelly, J. (2005). Reforming science in the school curriculum: A critical analysis. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 293-309.
13. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
14. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
15. Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
16. Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 187-206). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
17. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
18. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Berlin: Springer.
19. Friedman, M. (1974). Explanation and scientific understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 5-19.
20. Gamoran, A., Anderson, C., Quiroz, P., Secada, W., Williams, T., & Ashmann, S. (2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How school districts can support change. New York: Teachers College Press.
21. Grotzer, T. A. (2003). Learning to understand the forms of causality implicit in scientifically accepted explanations. Studies in Science Education, 39, 75-102.
22. Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students' understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16-29.
23. Hammer, D., Russ, R., Mikeska, J., & Scherr, R. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing abilities. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 138-156). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
24. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352-381.
25. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. In C. G. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science New York: Free Press.
26. Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135-175.
27. Herrenkohl, L. R. (2006). Intellectual role taking: Supporting discussion in heterogeneous elementary science classes. Theory into Practice, 45(1), 47-54.
28. Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitcher & W. C. Salmon (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science: Vol. XIII. Scientific explanation (pp. 410-499). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
29. Kitcher, P. (1997). Explanatory unification. In D. Rothbart (Ed.), Science, reason, and reality: Issues in the philosophy of science (pp. 167-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
30. Kitcher, P., & Salmon, W. C. (Eds.). (1989). Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science: Vol. XIII. Scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
31. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
34. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233-268.
35. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.
36. 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.
37. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000. Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
38. Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In D. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learning in grades 4-12. New York: Teachers College Press.
39. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
40. Nagel, E. (1979). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
41. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
42. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.), Board on Science Education, Center for Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
43. National Research Council (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Sarah Michaels, Andrew W. Shouse, & Heidi A. Schweingruber (Eds.), Board on Science Education, Center for Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
44. Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535-563.
45. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
46. Osborne, J. (May 2010). The importance of the history, philosophy, and sociology of science for the practice of school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
47. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: King's College.
48. Osborne, J., Duschl, R., & Fairbrother, R. (2002). Breaking the mould? Teaching science for public understanding. London: King's College.
49. Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. The Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 643-658.
50. 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.
51. Roth, K., & Garnier, H. (2007). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16-23.
52. 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(3), 499-525.
53. Salmon, W. C. (1978). Why ask "Why?" An inquiry concerning scientific explanation. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 51(6), 683-705.
54. Salmon, W. C. (1989). Four decades of scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
55. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
56. 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.
57. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
58. Songer, N., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. (2009). How and when does complex reasoningoccur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610-631.
59. Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (June 2009b). Learning progressions as vision tools for advancing teachers' pedagogical performance. Paper presented at Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) conference, Iowa City, IA.
60. Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M., with Sjoberg, B., Jones, M., & Martinez, K. (2009c). Examining student work: Evidence-based learning for students and teachers. The Science Teacher, 76(8), 48-52.
61. Thompson, J., Windschitl, M., & Braaten, M. (April 2008). How pedagogical reasoning and practice develops across "learning-to-teach" contexts. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
62. Thompson, J., Windschitl, M., & Braaten, M. (April 2009a). Explaining the development of ambitious practices across "learning-to-teach" contexts. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching. Anaheim, CA.
63. Thompson, J., Windschitl, M., & Braaten, M. (March 2010). Critical and contextual discourses: Explaining the development of ambitious practices across "learning-to-teach" contexts. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
64. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
65. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education. 25(11), 1353-1368.
66. Treagust, D. F., & Harrison, A. G. (2000). In search of explanatory frameworks: An analysis of Richard Feynman's lecture "Atoms in motion." International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1157-1170.
67. Van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
68. Windschitl, M. (2008). What is inquiry? A framework for thinking about authentic scientific practice in the classroom. In J. Luft, R. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 1-20). Arlington, VA: NSTA press.
69. Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple school science investigations: Can pre-service instruction foster teachers' understandings of model-based inquiry? American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783-835.
70. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008a). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310-378.
71. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008b). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941-967.
72. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2011). Ambitious pedagogy by novice teachers: Who benefits from tool-supported collaborative inquiry into practice and why? Teachers College Record, 113(7).
73. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., Stroupe, D., Chew, C., & Wright, E. (April 2010). The beginner's repertoire: A core set of instructional practices for teacher preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
74. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49-64.