Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Elaborating the structures of a science discipline to improve problem-solving instruction: An account of Classical Genetics' theory structure, function, and development

Abstract

Situating the conceptual knowledge of a science discipline in the context of its use in the solving of problems allows students the opportunity to develop: a highly structured and functional understanding of the conceptual structure of the discipline; general and discipline-specific problem-solving strategies and heuristics; and insight into the nature of science as an intellectual activity. In order realize these potential learning outcomes, the reconstructions of scientific theories used in problem solving must provide a detailed account of (1) realistic scientific problems and their solutions; (2) problem-solving strategies and patterns of reasoning of disciplinary experts; (3) the various ways that theories function for both disciplinary experts and students; and (4) the way theories, as solutions to realistic scientific problems, develop over time. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to provide further specificity regarding a philosophical reconstruction of the structure of Classical Genetics Theory that can facilitate problem-solving instruction. We analyze syntactic, semantic and problem-based accounts of theory structure with respect to the above criteria and develop a reconstruction that incorporates elements from the latter two. We then describe how that reconstruction can facilitate realistic problem solving on the part of students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Al-KunifedA. & WanderseeJ. H.: 1990, ‘One Hundred References Related to Concept Mapping’,Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27 (10), 1069–1075.

  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science: 1989,Science for All Americans, Project 2061, Washington, D.C.

  3. CallebautW.: 1993,Taking the Naturalistic Turn or How Real Philosophy of Science is Done, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  4. Collins, A.: 1986,Strategic Knowledge Required for Desired Performance in Solving Transmission Genetics Problems, Ph.D. Diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  5. CulpS. & KitcherP.: 1989, ‘Theory Structure and Theory Change in Contemporary Molecular Biology’,British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40(4), 459–483.

  6. DardenL.: 1991,Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics, Oxford University Press, New York.

  7. DuschlR. A.: 1990,Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development, Teachers College Press, New York.

  8. FetzerJ. H.: 1993,Foundations of Philosophy of Science: Recent Developments, Paragon House, New York.

  9. FeyerabendP. K.: 1962, ‘Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism’, in H.Feigl & G.Maxwell (eds.),Scientific Explanation: Space and Time, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 28–97.

  10. FinleyF. & StewartJ.: 1982, ‘Representing Substantive Structures’,Science Education 66(4), 593–611.

  11. GabelD. (ed.): 1994,Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Science Teachers Association, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York.

  12. GiereR. N.: 1988,Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  13. GiereR. N.: 1994, ‘The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Theories’,Philosophy of Science 61(2), 276–296.

  14. GriesemerJ. R.: 1984, ‘Presentations and the Status of Theories’,PSA 1, 102–114.

  15. GriesemerJ. R.: 1990, ‘Modeling in the Museum: On the Role of Remnant Models in the Work of Joseph Grinnell’,Biology and Philosophy 5(1), 3–36.

  16. GriesemerJ. R.: 1991, ‘Must Scientific Diagrams Be Eliminable? The Case of Path Analysis’,Biology and Philosophy 6(2), 155–180.

  17. HafnerR. & StewartJ.: 1995, ‘Revising Explanatory Models to Accommodate Anomalous Genetic Phenomena: Problem Solving in the “Context of Discovery”’,ciece Education 79(2), 111–146.

  18. JohnsonS. K. & StewartJ.: 1990, ‘Using Philosophy of Science in Curriculum Development: An Example from High School Genetics’,International Journal of Science Education 12(3), 297–307.

  19. JungckJ. R. & CalleyJ.: 1984,Gupenetics construction kit. COMPress Software, Wentworth, N. H.

  20. KindfieldA. C. H.: 1994, ‘Biology Diagrams: Tools to Think With’,Journal of the Learning Sciences 3(1), 1–36.

  21. KitcherP.: 1984, ‘1953 and All That, a Tale of Two Sciences’,The Philosophical Review 43(3), 335–373.

  22. KitcherP.: 1985, ‘Darwin's Achievement’, in N.Rescher (ed.),Reason and Rationality in Natural Science, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 127–189.

  23. KitcherP.: 1991, ‘Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World’, in P.Kitcher & W.Salmon (eds.),Scientific Explanation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 410–505.

  24. KitcherP.: 1993,The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. Oxford University Press, New York.

  25. KuhnT. S.: 1962,The Structure of Scientific Revolution, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  26. LakatosI.: 1970, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs’, in I.Lakatos & A.Musgrave (eds.),Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 91–196.

  27. LarkinJ. H. & SimonH.: 1987, ‘Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words’,Cognitive Science 11(1), 65–99.

  28. LaudanL.: 1977,Progress and its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth, University of California Press, Berkeley.

  29. LloydE. A.: 1988,The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory, Greenwood Press, New York.

  30. MayrE.: 1982,The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

  31. MayrE.: 1985, ‘How Biology Differs from the Physical Sciences’, in D. J.Depew & B. H.Weber (eds.),Evolution at a Crossroads: The New Biology and the New Philosophy of Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 43–63.

  32. MayerR. E.: 1992, ‘Knowledge and Thought: Mental Models that Support Scientific Reasoning’, in R. A.Duschl & R. J.Hamilton (eds.),Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice, State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 226–243.

  33. National Research Council: 1990,Fulfilling the Promise: Biology Education in the Nation's Schools, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

  34. NicklesT.: 1981, ‘What is a Problem that We May Solve It?’,Synthese 47, 85–118.

  35. NicklesT.: 1987, ‘Twixt Method and Madness’, in N. J.Nersessian (ed.),The Process of Science, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 41–67.

  36. NicklesT.: 1988, ‘Questioning and Problems in Philosophy of Science: Problem-Solving Versus Directly Truth-Seeking Epistemologies’, in M.Meyer (ed.),Questions and Questioning, DeGruyter, Berlin, pp. 43–67.

  37. PetersonN. S., JungckJ. R., SharpeD. M. & FinzerW. F.: 1987, ‘A Design Approach to Science. Simulated Laboratories: Learning Via the Construction of Meaning’,Machine-Mediated Learning 2(1/2), 111–127.

  38. RuseM.: 1973,The Philosophy of Biology, Hutchinson, London.

  39. SchankR. C.: 1986,Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

  40. SchwabJ. J.: 1962, ‘The Concept of the Structure of a Discipline’,Educational Record 43, 197–205.

  41. SchwabJ. J.: 1964, ‘The Structure of the Disciplines: Meanings and Significances’, in C. W.Ford& L.Pugno (eds.),The Structure of Knowledge and the Curriculum, Rand McNally and Company, New York, pp. 1–30.

  42. Science as a Way of Knowing — I.Evolutionary Biology: 1984, American Zoologist24(2), 419–534.

  43. Science as a Way of Knowing — II.Human Ecology: 1985, American Zoologist25(2), 375–641.

  44. Science as a Way of Knowing — III.Genetics: 1986, American Zoologist26(3), 569–918.

  45. Science as a Way of Knowing — IV.Developmental Biology: 1987, American Zoologist27(2), 411–732.

  46. Science as a Way of Knowing — V.Form and Function: 1988, American Zoologist28(2), 441–808.

  47. Science as a Way of Knowing — VI.Cell and Molecular Biology: 1989, American Zoologist29(2), 481–817.

  48. Science as a Way of Knowing — VII.Neurobiology and Behavior: 1990, American Zoologist30(3), 401–860.

  49. ShapereD.: 1974,Galileo: A Philosophical Study, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  50. StegmullerW.: 1976,The Structure and Dynamics of Theories, Springer-Verlag, New York.

  51. StewartJ.: 1988, ‘Potential Learning Outcomes from Solving Genetics Problems: A Typology of Problems’,Science Education 72(2), 237–254.

  52. StewartJ. & HafnerR.: 1991, ‘Extending the Conception of “Problem” in Problem-solving Research’,Science Education 75(1), 105–120.

  53. StewartJ. & VanKirkJ.: 1990, ‘Understanding and Problem Solving in Classical Genetics’,International Journal of Science Education 12(5), 575–588.

  54. SuppeF.: 1974, ‘Some Philosophical Problems in Biological Speciation and Taxonomy’, in J. A.Wojcieckowske (ed.),Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Verlag Dokumentation, Munich, pp. 190–243.

  55. SuppeF.: 1989,The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

  56. SuppesP.: 1967, ‘What is a Scientific Theory?’, in S.Morgenbesser (ed.),Philosophy of Science Today, Meridian, New York, pp. 655–676.

  57. ThompsonP.: 1989,The Structure of Biological Theories, State University of New York Press, Albany.

  58. ToulminS. E.: 1972,Human Understanding, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

  59. VolpeE. P.: 1984, ‘The Shame of Science Education’,American Zoologist 24(2), 433–441.

  60. WimsattW. C.: 1987, ‘False Models as Means to Truer Theories’, in M.Nitecki (ed.),Neural Models in Biology, Oxford University Press, London, pp. 23–55.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hafner, R., Culp, S. Elaborating the structures of a science discipline to improve problem-solving instruction: An account of Classical Genetics' theory structure, function, and development. Sci Educ 5, 331–355 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00625606

Download citation

Keywords

  • Learning Outcome
  • Scientific Theory
  • Realistic Problem
  • Detailed Account
  • Theory Structure