Children's mechanistic reasoning

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 170-206

  Bolger, Molly S ^a   Kobiela, Marta ^b   Weinberg, Paul J ^b   Lehrer, Richard ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859633315     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2012.661815     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Abrams, E. and Southerland, S. (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. Alibali, M. W., Kita, S. and Young, A. J. (2000). Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(6): 593-613.
3. Borton, R. W. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. The perception of causality in infants, San Francisco, CA
4. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J. and Sherwood, R. D. 1989. "New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told". In Similarity and analogical reasoning, Edited by: Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. 470-497. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bullock, M., Gelman, R. and Baillargeon, R. 1982. "The development of causal reasoning". In The developmental psychology of time, Edited by: Friedman, W. J. 209-254. New York, NY: Academic Press.
6. Clement, J. 1988). Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12(4): 563-586.
7. Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is elementary. The Bridge, 30(3): 11-17.
8. Chin, C. and Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2): 109-138.
9. Dixon, J. A. and Bangert, A. S. (2002). The prehistory of discovery: Precursors of representational change in solving gear systems problems. Developmental Psychology, 38(6): 918-933.
10. Frederiksen, J. R., White, B. Y. and Gutwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7): 806-836.
11. Ginsburg, H. P., Jacobs, S. F. and Lopez, L. S. 1998. The teacher's guide to flexible interviewing in the classroom: Learning what children know about math, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
12. Gopnik, A., Sobel, M., Schulz, L. E. and 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.
13. Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6): 280-285.
14. Hegarty, M. and Sims, V. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22(4): 411-430.
15. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. and Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1): 127-138.
16. Jordan, B. and Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1): 39-103.
17. Lehrer, R. and Schauble, L. (1998). Reasoning about structure and function: Children's conceptions of gears. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1): 3-25.
18. Leslie, A. M. and Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month-old infants perceive causality?. Cognition, 25(3): 265-288.
19. Machamer, P., Darden, L. and Craver, C. (2000). Thinking about mechanism. Philosophy of Science, 67(1): 1-25.
20. Metz, K. E. (1985). The development of children's problem solving in a gears task: A problem space perspective. Cognitive Science, 9(4): 431-471.
21. 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.
22. National Research Council. 2011. A frameworkfor K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23. Nazzi, T. and Gopnik, A. (2000). A shift in children's use of perceptual and causal cues to categorization. Developmental Science, 3(4): 389-396.
24. Nazzi, T. and Gopnik, A. (2003). Sorting and acting with objects in early childhood: An exploration of the use of causal cues. Cognitive Development, 18(3): 299-317.
25. Nersessian, N. 2008. Creating scientific concepts, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Ochs, E., Taylor, C., Rudolph, D. and Smith, R. (1982). Story telling as a theory-building activity. Discourse Processes, 15: 37-72.
27. Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D. and Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3): 499-524.
28. Schwartz, D. L. and Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4): 475-522.
29. Shultz, T. R. (1982). Rules of causal attribution [Monograph]. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47(1): 1-51.
30. Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L. and Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding students' explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual framework or p-prims?. Science Education, 85(4): 328-348.
31. Talanquer, V. (2010). Exploring dominant types of explanations built by general chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18): 2393-2412.
32. White, B. (1983). Sources of difficulty in understanding Newtonian dynamics. Cognitive Science, 7(1): 41-65.
33. White, B. (1993). Thinker tools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1): 1-100.