Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2018.38.5.599

Development of a Mechanistic Reasoning Model Based on Biologist's Inquiries  

Jeong, Sunhee (Yangnam Elementary School)
Yang, Ilho (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.38, no.5, 2018 , pp. 599-610 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze mechanistic reasoning in Fabre's inquires and to develop mechanistic reasoning model. To analyze the order of the process elements in mechanistic reasoning, 30 chapters were selected in book. Inquiries were analyzed through a framework which is based on Russ et al. (2008). The nine process elements of mechanistic reasoning that was presented in Fabre's inquires were as follows: Describing the Target Phenomenon, Identifying prior Knowledge, Identifying Properties of Objects, Identifying Setup Conditions, Identifying Activities, Conjecturing Entities, Identifying Properties of Entities, Identifying Entities, and Organization of Entities. The order of process elements of mechanistic reasoning was affected by inquiry's subject, types of question, prior knowledge and situation. Three mechanistic reasoning models based on the process elements of mechanistic reasoning were developed: Mechanistic reasoning model for Identifying Entities(MIE), Mechanistic reasoning model for Identifying Activities(MIA), and Mechanistic reasoning model for Identifying Properties of entities (MIP). Science teacher can help students to use the questions of not only "why" but also "How", "If", "What", when students identify entities or generate hypotheses. Also science teacher should be required to understand mechanistic reasoning to give students opportunities to generate diverse hypotheses. If students can't conjecture entities easily, MIA and MIP would be helpful for students.
Keywords
mechanistic reasoning; reasoning model; biologist's inquiry;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Bogen, J. (2008). Causally productive activities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 39(1), 112-123.   DOI
2 Bolger, M. S., Kobiela, M., Weinberg, P. J., & Lehrer, R. (2012). Children's mechanistic reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(2), 170-206.   DOI
3 Boogerd, F. C., Bruggeman, F. J., Hofmeyr, J. H. S., & Westerhoff, H. V. (2007). Systems biology:Philosophical foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
4 Braben, D. W. (1994). To be a scientist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5 Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.   DOI
6 Cho, H. (2009). The Analysis of the Astronomers' Research Process and Reasoning. Korea National Unerversity of Education, Doctorial dissertation. Chung-Buk.
7 Craver, F. F. (2007). Explaning the brain. NY: Oxford University Press.
8 Darden, L. (2002). Strategies for discovering mechanisms: Schema instantiation, modular subassembly, forward/backward chaining. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 354-365.   DOI
9 Darden, L. (2006). Reasoning in biological discoveries: Essays on mechanisms, interfield relations, and anomaly resolution (Cambridge studies in philosophy and biology). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10 Dickes, A. C., Sengupta, P., Farris, A. V., & Basu, S. (2016). Development of Mechanistic Reasoning and Multilevel Explanations of Ecology in Third Grade Using Agent-Based Models. Science Education, 100(4), 734-776.   DOI
11 Fabre, J. H. (1989). Souvenirs Entomologiques(Etudes sur I'instinct et les moeurs des insectes). Bouqiuns : Robert Laffont Press. In Kim. J (Ed), Souvenirs entomologiques 1-10. Seoul: hyeonamsa.
12 Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69(S3), S342-S353.   DOI
13 Glennan, S. (2005). Modeling mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 36(2), 443-464.   DOI
14 Ahn, W., & Kalish, C. W. (2000). The role of mechanism belief in causal reasoning. In F. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and Cognition (pp. 199-225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15 Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 36(2), 421-441.   DOI
16 Glymour, C. (2003). Learning, prediction and causal bayes nets. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(1), 43-48.   DOI
17 Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., & 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.   DOI
18 Hung W., & Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Conceptual understanding of causal reasoning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1601-1621.   DOI
19 Keil, F., Levin, D., Gutheil, G. and Richman, B. (1999). Explanation, cause and mechanism: The case of contagion. In Medin, D. and Atran, S. (Eds.), Folkbiology, pp. 285-320. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
20 Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21 Kown, Y., Yang, I., Chung, W. (2000). An Explorative Analysis of Hypothesis-Generation by Pre-service Science Teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 20(1), 29-42.
22 Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking (pp. 139-147). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
23 Lee, H., Yang, I., Kwon, Y. (2009). A Study on the Abductive Thinking in the Processes of Bilogists' Science Knowledge Generation. The Korean Journal of Biology Educaytion, 36(2), 189-202.
24 Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1-25.   DOI
25 Magnani, L. (2004). Model-based and manipulative abduction in science. Foundation of Science, 9(3), 219-247.   DOI
26 Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive Models of Science (pp. 5-22). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
27 Reiff, R., Harwood, W. S., & Phillipson, T. (2002). A scientific method based upon research scientists' conception of scientific inquiry (pp. 1-24). In proceedings of the annual international conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.
28 Russ, R. S., 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.   DOI
29 Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledgerich contexts. Development Psychology, 32(1), 102-119.   DOI
30 Thagard. P. (1999). How scientists explain disease. Princeton, NJ: Prinston University Press.
31 Van Mil, M. H. W., 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.   DOI
32 Van Mil, M. H., 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.   DOI
33 Yang, I., Jeong, J., Jown, Y., Jeong, J., Hur, M., Oh, C. (2006). An Intensive Inteview Study on the Process of Scientists' Science Knowledge Generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 26(1), 88-96.
34 Yang, I., Oh, C., & Cho, H. (2007). Development of the scientific inquiry process model based on scientists' practical work. Journal of Korea Association for Research in Science Education, 27(8), 724-742.
35 Zeineddin, A., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2010). Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: Coordination of theory and evidence among college science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1064-1093.   DOI