Advertisement

Bridging the Gap Between Philosophy of Science and Student Mechanistic Reasoning

  • Nicole GraulichEmail author
  • Ira Caspari
Chapter

Abstract

Reasoning about mechanisms is central to understanding relevant components and cause–effect relations of phenomena in science. Explaining mechanisms is, thus, an essential practice in natural sciences and STEM disciplines. Accounts from philosophy of science provide insight into the nature of mechanisms and mechanistic reasoning and how knowledge about mechanisms is gathered and evaluated. Mechanistic reasoning comprises reasoning about the entities and activities involved in a process and the way these entities and activities are organized. These theoretical considerations combined with an educational perspective on students’ learning provide a lens for the methodology of educational studies, e.g. for the analysis of students’ productive resources or for curriculum changes. This chapter outlines how accounts from philosophy of science have been used to inform research on student learning from primary school children’s descriptions of physical phenomena to multi-level reasoning processes in undergraduate biology classes. Depending on the nature of the discipline and the educational objective of the study, different aspects of what constitutes mechanistic reasoning from philosophy of science have been adapted. Specifically, we illustrate how accounts from philosophy of science helped us characterize students’ reasoning processes about organic reaction mechanisms.

References

  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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110038558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhattacharyya, G., & Bodner, G. M. (2005). “It gets me to the product”: How students propose organic mechanisms. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(9), 1402–1407.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 123–141.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caspari, I., Kranz, D., & Graulich, N. (2018a). Resolving the complexity of organic chemistry students’ reasoning through the lens of a mechanistic framework. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 1117–1140.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00131f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caspari, I., Weinrich, M., Sevian, H., & Graulich, N. (2018b). This mechanistic step is “productive”: Organic chemistry students’ backward-oriented reasoning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 42–59.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00124J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, M. M. (2015). Why ask why? Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1273–1279.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craver, C. F., & Darden, L. (2013). In search of mechanisms: Discoveries across the life sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darden, L. (2002). Strategies for discovering mechanisms: Schema instantiation, modular subassembly, forward/backward chaining. Philosophy of Science, 69(S3), 354–365.  https://doi.org/10.1086/341858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darden, L., & Craver, C. (2002). Strategies in the interfield discovery of the mechanism of protein synthesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 33(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DiSessa, A. A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 15–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(Sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3%3c287:Aid-Sce1%3e3.0.Co;2-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duncan, R. G. (2007). The role of domain-specific knowledge in generative reasoning about complicated multileveled phenomena. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 271–336.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701632355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glennan, S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), S342–S353.  https://doi.org/10.1086/341857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodwin, W. (2003). Explanation in organic chemistry. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 988, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodwin, W. (2008). Structural formulas and explanation in organic chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 10(2), 117–127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-007-9033-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graulich, N. (2015). The tip of the iceberg in organic chemistry classes: How do students deal with the invisible? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 9–21.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp00165f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammer, D., & Berland, L. K. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Illari, P. M., & Williamson, J. (2012). What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2(1), 119–135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0038-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2013). The cost of concreteness: The effect of nonessential information on analogical transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(1), 14–29.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koslowski, B., & Masnick, A. (2002). The development of causal reasoning. Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, 257–281.Google Scholar
  24. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1086/392759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moreira, P., Marzabal, A., & Talanquer, V. (2018). Using a mechanistic framework to characterise chemistry students’ reasoning in written explanations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00159f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102–119.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.1.102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sevian, H., Bernholt, S., Szteinberg, G. A., Auguste, S., & Perez, L. C. (2015). Use of representation mapping to capture abstraction in problem solving in different courses in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 429–446.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00030k.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Southard, K., Wince, T., Meddleton, S., & Bolger, M. S. (2016). Features of knowledge building in biology: Understanding undergraduate students’ ideas about molecular mechanisms. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(1), 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-05-0114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tabery, J. G. (2004). Synthesizing activities and interactions in the concept of a mechanism. Philosophy of Science, 71(1), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1086/381409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Talanquer, V. (2018). Exploring mechanistic reasoning in chemistry. In J. Yeo, T. W. Teo, & K.-S. Tang (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Asia-Pacific and beyond (pp. 39–52). Singapore: Springer Singapore.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5149-4_3.Google Scholar
  32. van Mil, M. H., Boerwinkel, D. J., & Waarlo, A. J. (2013). Modelling molecular mechanisms: A framework of scientific reasoning to construct molecular-level explanations for cellular behaviour. Science & Education, 22(1), 93–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9379-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Mil, M. H. W., Postma, P. A., Boerwinkel, D. J., Klaassen, K., & Waarlo, A. J. (2016). Molecular mechanistic reasoning: Toward bridging the gap between the molecular and cellular levels in life science education. Science Education, 100(3), 517–585.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wulf, R., Hinko, K., & Finkelstein, N. (2013). Comparing mechanistic reasoning in open and guided inquiry physics activities. Paper presented at the Physics Education Research Conference, Portland, OR, July 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Justus-Liebig University Gießen, Institute of Chemistry EducationGießenGermany

Personalised recommendations