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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cooper, M. M. (2015). Why ask why? Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1273–1279. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203.
Craver, C. F., & Darden, L. (2013). In search of mechanisms: Discoveries across the life sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Glennan, S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44(1), 49–71.
Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), S342–S353. https://doi.org/10.1086/341857.
Goodwin, W. (2003). Explanation in organic chemistry. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 988, 141–153.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Koslowski, B., & Masnick, A. (2002). The development of causal reasoning. Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, 257–281.
Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1086/392759.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Graulich, N., Caspari, I. (2019). Bridging the Gap Between Philosophy of Science and Student Mechanistic Reasoning. In: Schultz, M., Schmid, S., Lawrie, G. (eds) Research and Practice in Chemistry Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6998-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6998-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6997-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6998-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)