How Good Are Students at Testing Alternative Explanations of Unseen Entities?

Lawson, Anton E.; Drake, Nicole; Johnson, Jennifer; Kwon, Yong‐Ju; Scarpone, Christopher

doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2000)062[0249:hgasat]2.0.co;2

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In many cases, different terms were used interchangeably (such as explanations and reasoning, explanations and ideas, etc.) that resulted in more ambiguity about the validity of the assessment process, for example, Forbes, Lange, Möller, Biggers, Laux, and Zangori (2014); Kesonen et al (2017); Kokkonen and Mäntylä (2018); Mestad and Kolstø (2017); Meyer and Woodruff (1997); Lawson et al (2000); Peker and Wallace (2011); Southard, Espindola, Zaepfel, and Bolger (2017); Zangori et al (2015). For instance, Kesonen et al (2017) used the terms explanations, reasoning and students' ideas interchangeably in their analysis of students' answers to questions about the behavior of light.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Nature of Scientific Explanation: Examining the perceptions of the nature, quality, and “goodness” of explanation among college students, science teachers, and scientists

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues regarding scientific explanation have been of interest to philosophers from Pre‐Socratic times. The notion of scientific explanation is of interest not only to philosophers, but also to science educators as is clearly evident in the emphasis given to K‐12 students' construction of explanations in current national science education reform efforts. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of research on conceptualizing explanation in science education. Using a philosophically guided framework—the Nature of Scientific Explanation (NOSE) framework—the study aims to elucidate and compare college freshmen science students', secondary science teachers', and practicing scientists' scientific explanations and their views of scientific explanations. In particular, this study aims to: (1) analyze students', teachers', and scientists' scientific explanations; (2) explore the nuances about how freshman students, science teachers, and practicing scientists construct explanations; and (3) elucidate the criteria that participants use in analyzing scientific explanations. In two separate interviews, participants first constructed explanations of everyday scientific phenomena and then provided feedback on the explanations constructed by other participants. Major findings showed that, when analyzed using NOSE framework, participant scientists did significantly “better” than teachers and students. Our analysis revealed that scientists, teachers, and students share a lot of similarities in how they construct their explanations in science. However, they differ in some key dimensions. The present study highlighted the need articulated by many researchers in science education to understand additional aspects specific to scientific explanation. The present findings provide an initial analytical framework for examining students' and science teachers' scientific explanations.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Nature of Scientific Explanation: Examining the perceptions of the nature, quality, and “goodness” of explanation among college students, science teachers, and scientists

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In conducting the investigation stage, the students had a discussion about scientific phenomena they observe. By observing the phenomenon, students can build knowledge and use it to develop and test phenomenon-related explanations (Kipnis & Hofstein, 2008) to answer causal questions (Lawson, et al, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploration of Physics Problem-Solving Skills Within Phenomenon-Based Learning in Senior High School Students

Yuliati

Parno

2018

International Conference on Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem-solving skills are cognitive processes that help students find solutions to problems. The results of preliminary studies and previous research show that students have difficulty in solving optical problems. Students tend to solve optical problems with mathematical procedures without going through the process of identifying and analyzing how to solve problems. This research aimed to explore students' problem-solving skills on optical materials and find their solutions through phenomenon-based learning. The research used a mixed method on 30 high school students in East Java, Indonesia. The data was obtained by using open-ended questions (Cronbach Alpha = 0.82). Data analysis was done quantitatively and qualitatively. Data were collected using tests and interviews regarding phenomenon-based learning. The results showed that problem-solving skills were classified into useful description 18%, physics approach 17%, the specific application of physics 11, mathematical procedures 33%, and logical progression 21%. Most students used a mathematical approach rather than a physics approach to solving optical problems. Phenomenonbased learning helps students understand physics through problems presented with phenomenon and problem solving based on phenomena.

show abstract

Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities*

Lawson

2002

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sample of preservice biology teachers (biology majors) enrolled in a teaching methods course formulated and attempted to test six hypotheses to answer a causal question about why water rose in a jar inverted over a burning candle placed in a pan of water. The students submitted a lab report in which arguments and evidence for testing each hypothesis were presented in an if/then/therefore hypothetico‐predictive form. Analysis of written arguments revealed considerable success when students were able to manipulate observable hypothesized causes. However, when the hypothesized causes were unobservable, such that they could be only indirectly tested, performance dropped, as shown by use of three types of faulty arguments: (a) arguments that had missing or confused elements, (b) arguments whose predictions did not follow from hypotheses and planned tests, and (c) arguments that failed to consider alternative hypotheses. Science is an enterprise in which unobservable theoretical entities and processes (e.g., atoms, genes, osmosis, and photosynthesis) are often used to explain observable phenomena. Consequently, if it is assumed that effective teaching requires prior understanding, then it follows that these future teachers have yet to develop adequate hypothesis‐testing skills and sufficient awareness of the nature of science to teach science in the inquiry mode advocated by reform guidelines. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 237–252, 2002

show abstract

How Good Are Students at Testing Alternative Explanations of Unseen Entities?

Cited by 7 publications

References 23 publications

The Nature of Scientific Explanation: Examining the perceptions of the nature, quality, and “goodness” of explanation among college students, science teachers, and scientists

The Nature of Scientific Explanation: Examining the perceptions of the nature, quality, and “goodness” of explanation among college students, science teachers, and scientists

Exploration of Physics Problem-Solving Skills Within Phenomenon-Based Learning in Senior High School Students

Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About