Misconceived Causal Explanations for Emergent Processes

Cognitive Science 36 (1):1-61 (2012)
Abstract
Studies exploring how students learn and understand science processes such as diffusion and natural selection typically find that students provide misconceived explanations of how the patterns of such processes arise (such as why giraffes’ necks get longer over generations, or how ink dropped into water appears to “flow”). Instead of explaining the patterns of these processes as emerging from the collective interactions of all the agents (e.g., both the water and the ink molecules), students often explain the pattern as being caused by controlling agents with intentional goals, as well as express a variety of many other misconceived notions. In this article, we provide a hypothesis for what constitutes a misconceived explanation; why misconceived explanations are so prevalent, robust, and resistant to instruction; and offer one approach of how they may be overcome. In particular, we hypothesize that students misunderstand many science processes because they rely on a generalized version of narrative schemas and scripts (referred to here as a Direct-causal Schema) to interpret them. For science processes that are sequential and stage-like, such as cycles of moon, circulation of blood, stages of mitosis, and photosynthesis, a Direct-causal Schema is adequate for correct understanding. However, for science processes that are non-sequential (or emergent), such as diffusion, natural selection, osmosis, and heat flow, using a Direct Schema to understand these processes will lead to robust misconceptions. Instead, a different type of general schema may be required to interpret non-sequential processes, which we refer to as an Emergent-causal Schema. We propose that students lack this Emergent Schema and teaching it to them may help them learn and understand emergent kinds of science processes such as diffusion. Our study found that directly teaching students this Emergent Schema led to increased learning of the process of diffusion. This article presents a fine-grained characterization of each type of Schema, our instructional intervention, the successes we have achieved, and the lessons we have learned
Keywords Simulations  Causal explanations  Science processes  Diffusion  Misconceptions  Emergence  Learning
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,357
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    View all 9 references

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Wesley C. Salmon (1980). Causality: Production and Propagation. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:49 - 69.
    Renate Mayntz (2004). Mechanisms in the Analysis of Social Macro-Phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34 (2):237-259.
    James L. McClelland (2010). Emergence in Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4):751-770.
    Douglas Ehring (1986). Causal Processes and Causal Interactions. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:24 - 32.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2011-11-04

    Total downloads

    13 ( #100,556 of 1,088,810 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,810 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.