“I think of it that way and it helps me understand”: Anthropomorphism in elementary students' mechanistic stories

Abstract

How anthropomorphic reasoning functions in scientific thinking has been a controversial topic. There is evidence it is problematic as well as evidence it can play productive roles, for scientists and for students. In science education, however, the prevailing view remains that it is an impediment. For this study, we have chosen examples of what we claim are productive instances in elementary students' reasoning, and we analyze them to understand how anthropomorphisms functioned to support scientific thinking. We argue that one productive role is to support temporary shifts from mechanistic reasoning to more general storytelling, in particular to fill gaps as students work to explain phenomena. That is, we propose that children may come to mechanistic explanation as a form of storytelling. Part of their value is in allowing students to “invent science” based on their existing knowledge, supporting them to understand science as sensemaking.

How We Simplify, Circumvent, or Distort Causal Mechanistic Reasoning in Chemistry

“…We often transform causal-mechanistic stories into teleological explanations in which phenomena are justified in terms of the goals they achieve rather than by the causes from which they arise . This approach has been shown to have pedagogical value as it helps students build analogical mental models and precausal narratives of the systems or processes under analysis. , However, it may also reinforce naïve conceptualizations of chemical phenomena as driven by active agents with needs and desires, , particularly if students do not get opportunities to analyze and reflect on the nature of the interactions and constraints acting on system components.…”

“…They reduce the complexity of detailed causal-mechanistic explanations by making them more accessible and comprehensible to novice learners . They can help build bridges between naïve and scientific forms of building explanations, leveraging students’ prior knowledge and cognitive resources. , Consequently, by making the approaches explicit, I do not seek to suggest that they must be expunged from the chemistry classroom. Instead, I call attention to them to make chemistry educators aware of their widespread use and potential impact on student learning.…”

“…Instead, the goal is to make explicit common instructional practices when building explanations in chemistry classrooms and foster reflection about their potential impact on student understanding. Reliance on these approaches may help advance learning in some contexts by leveraging students’ cognitive resources but hinder it in other situations. , Instructors’ awareness of these issues can help them make better educational decisions depending on their learning goals and the situation. Identifying and labeling these approaches can also help communicate our pedagogical decisions, intentions, and actions to students and colleagues.…”