Some assembly required: How scientific explanations are constructed during clinical interviews

This article is concerned with commonsense science knowledge, the informally gained knowledge of the natural world that students possess prior to formal instruction in a scientific discipline. Although commonsense science has been the focus of substantial study for more than two decades, there are s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of research in science teaching 2012-02, Vol.49 (2), p.166-198
Hauptverfasser: Sherin, Bruce L., Krakowski, Moshe, Lee, Victor R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 198
container_issue 2
container_start_page 166
container_title Journal of research in science teaching
container_volume 49
creator Sherin, Bruce L.
Krakowski, Moshe
Lee, Victor R.
description This article is concerned with commonsense science knowledge, the informally gained knowledge of the natural world that students possess prior to formal instruction in a scientific discipline. Although commonsense science has been the focus of substantial study for more than two decades, there are still profound disagreements about its nature and origin, and its role in science learning. What is the reason that it has been so difficult to reach consensus? We believe that the problems run deep; there are difficulties both with how the field has framed questions and the way that it has gone about seeking answers. In order to make progress, we believe it will be helpful to focus on one type of research instrument—the clinical interview—that is employed in the study of commonsense science. More specifically, we argue that we should seek to understand and model, on a moment‐by‐moment basis, student reasoning as it occurs in the interviews employed to study commonsense science. To illustrate and support this claim, we draw on a corpus of interviews with middle school students in which the students were asked questions pertaining to the seasons and climate phenomena. Our analysis of this corpus is based on what we call the mode‐node framework. In this framework, student reasoning is seen as drawing on a set of knowledge elements we call nodes, and this set produces temporary explanatory structures we call dynamic mental constructs. Furthermore, the analysis of our corpus seeks to highlight certain patterns of student reasoning that occur during interviews, patterns in what we call conceptual dynamics. These include patterns in which students can be seen to search through available knowledge (nodes), in which they assemble nodes into an explanation, and in which they converge on and shift among alternative explanations. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 166–198, 2012
doi_str_mv 10.1002/tea.20455
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1018377587</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ989355</ericid><sourcerecordid>1018377587</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3965-ddb2d8d08a315e251d5f21571ba3734ed3b3462382adea134ae126c92f533c963</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kDtPxDAQhC0EEsejoKdwCUXA9sZJTAfoeAskHqLD8tkbZMglh51w3L8nEKCj2pHmm9FqCNnibI8zJvZbNHuCpVIukRFnqkhEDtkyGfWeSFJgxSpZi_GFMQaKqxF5umumSE2MOJ1UCxrwrfMB3QE9a-Y0Wo9160tvKX7MKlOb1jd1pCYgtb1oQ2dbdNR1wdfP1Fa-9tZU1NcthneP87hBVkpTRdz8uevk4WR8f3yWXN2cnh8fXiUWVCYT5ybCFY4VBrhEIbmTpeAy5xMDOaToYAJpJqAQxqHhkBrkIrNKlBLAqgzWyc7QOwvNW4ex1VMfLVb9z9h0UXPGC8hzWeQ9ujugNjQxBiz1LPipCYse0l8b6n5D_b1hz24PLAZv_7jxhSoUfNv7gz33FS7-79H348PfwmRI-Njix1_ChFed5ZBL_Xh9qo8uby_VrTjRDD4BcZOMZQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1018377587</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Some assembly required: How scientific explanations are constructed during clinical interviews</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Education Source</source><creator>Sherin, Bruce L. ; Krakowski, Moshe ; Lee, Victor R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sherin, Bruce L. ; Krakowski, Moshe ; Lee, Victor R.</creatorcontrib><description>This article is concerned with commonsense science knowledge, the informally gained knowledge of the natural world that students possess prior to formal instruction in a scientific discipline. Although commonsense science has been the focus of substantial study for more than two decades, there are still profound disagreements about its nature and origin, and its role in science learning. What is the reason that it has been so difficult to reach consensus? We believe that the problems run deep; there are difficulties both with how the field has framed questions and the way that it has gone about seeking answers. In order to make progress, we believe it will be helpful to focus on one type of research instrument—the clinical interview—that is employed in the study of commonsense science. More specifically, we argue that we should seek to understand and model, on a moment‐by‐moment basis, student reasoning as it occurs in the interviews employed to study commonsense science. To illustrate and support this claim, we draw on a corpus of interviews with middle school students in which the students were asked questions pertaining to the seasons and climate phenomena. Our analysis of this corpus is based on what we call the mode‐node framework. In this framework, student reasoning is seen as drawing on a set of knowledge elements we call nodes, and this set produces temporary explanatory structures we call dynamic mental constructs. Furthermore, the analysis of our corpus seeks to highlight certain patterns of student reasoning that occur during interviews, patterns in what we call conceptual dynamics. These include patterns in which students can be seen to search through available knowledge (nodes), in which they assemble nodes into an explanation, and in which they converge on and shift among alternative explanations. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 166–198, 2012</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-4308</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1098-2736</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/tea.20455</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Academic disciplines ; Climate ; clinical interviews ; Cognitive Structures ; Concept Formation ; conceptual change ; Epistemology ; Experiential Learning ; Grade 7 ; Grade 8 ; Informal Education ; Intellectual Development ; Interviews ; Learning ; Middle School Students ; Middle schools ; Misconceptions ; Natural phenomena ; Prior Learning ; Science Achievement ; science learning ; Scientific Concepts ; seasons</subject><ispartof>Journal of research in science teaching, 2012-02, Vol.49 (2), p.166-198</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3965-ddb2d8d08a315e251d5f21571ba3734ed3b3462382adea134ae126c92f533c963</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3965-ddb2d8d08a315e251d5f21571ba3734ed3b3462382adea134ae126c92f533c963</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Ftea.20455$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Ftea.20455$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27928,27929,31004,45578,45579</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ989355$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sherin, Bruce L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krakowski, Moshe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Victor R.</creatorcontrib><title>Some assembly required: How scientific explanations are constructed during clinical interviews</title><title>Journal of research in science teaching</title><addtitle>J. Res. Sci. Teach</addtitle><description>This article is concerned with commonsense science knowledge, the informally gained knowledge of the natural world that students possess prior to formal instruction in a scientific discipline. Although commonsense science has been the focus of substantial study for more than two decades, there are still profound disagreements about its nature and origin, and its role in science learning. What is the reason that it has been so difficult to reach consensus? We believe that the problems run deep; there are difficulties both with how the field has framed questions and the way that it has gone about seeking answers. In order to make progress, we believe it will be helpful to focus on one type of research instrument—the clinical interview—that is employed in the study of commonsense science. More specifically, we argue that we should seek to understand and model, on a moment‐by‐moment basis, student reasoning as it occurs in the interviews employed to study commonsense science. To illustrate and support this claim, we draw on a corpus of interviews with middle school students in which the students were asked questions pertaining to the seasons and climate phenomena. Our analysis of this corpus is based on what we call the mode‐node framework. In this framework, student reasoning is seen as drawing on a set of knowledge elements we call nodes, and this set produces temporary explanatory structures we call dynamic mental constructs. Furthermore, the analysis of our corpus seeks to highlight certain patterns of student reasoning that occur during interviews, patterns in what we call conceptual dynamics. These include patterns in which students can be seen to search through available knowledge (nodes), in which they assemble nodes into an explanation, and in which they converge on and shift among alternative explanations. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 166–198, 2012</description><subject>Academic disciplines</subject><subject>Climate</subject><subject>clinical interviews</subject><subject>Cognitive Structures</subject><subject>Concept Formation</subject><subject>conceptual change</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Experiential Learning</subject><subject>Grade 7</subject><subject>Grade 8</subject><subject>Informal Education</subject><subject>Intellectual Development</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Middle School Students</subject><subject>Middle schools</subject><subject>Misconceptions</subject><subject>Natural phenomena</subject><subject>Prior Learning</subject><subject>Science Achievement</subject><subject>science learning</subject><subject>Scientific Concepts</subject><subject>seasons</subject><issn>0022-4308</issn><issn>1098-2736</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kDtPxDAQhC0EEsejoKdwCUXA9sZJTAfoeAskHqLD8tkbZMglh51w3L8nEKCj2pHmm9FqCNnibI8zJvZbNHuCpVIukRFnqkhEDtkyGfWeSFJgxSpZi_GFMQaKqxF5umumSE2MOJ1UCxrwrfMB3QE9a-Y0Wo9160tvKX7MKlOb1jd1pCYgtb1oQ2dbdNR1wdfP1Fa-9tZU1NcthneP87hBVkpTRdz8uevk4WR8f3yWXN2cnh8fXiUWVCYT5ybCFY4VBrhEIbmTpeAy5xMDOaToYAJpJqAQxqHhkBrkIrNKlBLAqgzWyc7QOwvNW4ex1VMfLVb9z9h0UXPGC8hzWeQ9ujugNjQxBiz1LPipCYse0l8b6n5D_b1hz24PLAZv_7jxhSoUfNv7gz33FS7-79H348PfwmRI-Njix1_ChFed5ZBL_Xh9qo8uby_VrTjRDD4BcZOMZQ</recordid><startdate>201202</startdate><enddate>201202</enddate><creator>Sherin, Bruce L.</creator><creator>Krakowski, Moshe</creator><creator>Lee, Victor R.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201202</creationdate><title>Some assembly required: How scientific explanations are constructed during clinical interviews</title><author>Sherin, Bruce L. ; Krakowski, Moshe ; Lee, Victor R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3965-ddb2d8d08a315e251d5f21571ba3734ed3b3462382adea134ae126c92f533c963</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Academic disciplines</topic><topic>Climate</topic><topic>clinical interviews</topic><topic>Cognitive Structures</topic><topic>Concept Formation</topic><topic>conceptual change</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Experiential Learning</topic><topic>Grade 7</topic><topic>Grade 8</topic><topic>Informal Education</topic><topic>Intellectual Development</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Middle School Students</topic><topic>Middle schools</topic><topic>Misconceptions</topic><topic>Natural phenomena</topic><topic>Prior Learning</topic><topic>Science Achievement</topic><topic>science learning</topic><topic>Scientific Concepts</topic><topic>seasons</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sherin, Bruce L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krakowski, Moshe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Victor R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Journal of research in science teaching</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sherin, Bruce L.</au><au>Krakowski, Moshe</au><au>Lee, Victor R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ989355</ericid><atitle>Some assembly required: How scientific explanations are constructed during clinical interviews</atitle><jtitle>Journal of research in science teaching</jtitle><addtitle>J. Res. Sci. Teach</addtitle><date>2012-02</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>166</spage><epage>198</epage><pages>166-198</pages><issn>0022-4308</issn><eissn>1098-2736</eissn><abstract>This article is concerned with commonsense science knowledge, the informally gained knowledge of the natural world that students possess prior to formal instruction in a scientific discipline. Although commonsense science has been the focus of substantial study for more than two decades, there are still profound disagreements about its nature and origin, and its role in science learning. What is the reason that it has been so difficult to reach consensus? We believe that the problems run deep; there are difficulties both with how the field has framed questions and the way that it has gone about seeking answers. In order to make progress, we believe it will be helpful to focus on one type of research instrument—the clinical interview—that is employed in the study of commonsense science. More specifically, we argue that we should seek to understand and model, on a moment‐by‐moment basis, student reasoning as it occurs in the interviews employed to study commonsense science. To illustrate and support this claim, we draw on a corpus of interviews with middle school students in which the students were asked questions pertaining to the seasons and climate phenomena. Our analysis of this corpus is based on what we call the mode‐node framework. In this framework, student reasoning is seen as drawing on a set of knowledge elements we call nodes, and this set produces temporary explanatory structures we call dynamic mental constructs. Furthermore, the analysis of our corpus seeks to highlight certain patterns of student reasoning that occur during interviews, patterns in what we call conceptual dynamics. These include patterns in which students can be seen to search through available knowledge (nodes), in which they assemble nodes into an explanation, and in which they converge on and shift among alternative explanations. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 166–198, 2012</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><doi>10.1002/tea.20455</doi><tpages>33</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-4308
ispartof Journal of research in science teaching, 2012-02, Vol.49 (2), p.166-198
issn 0022-4308
1098-2736
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1018377587
source Access via Wiley Online Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Education Source
subjects Academic disciplines
Climate
clinical interviews
Cognitive Structures
Concept Formation
conceptual change
Epistemology
Experiential Learning
Grade 7
Grade 8
Informal Education
Intellectual Development
Interviews
Learning
Middle School Students
Middle schools
Misconceptions
Natural phenomena
Prior Learning
Science Achievement
science learning
Scientific Concepts
seasons
title Some assembly required: How scientific explanations are constructed during clinical interviews
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T01%3A50%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Some%20assembly%20required:%20How%20scientific%20explanations%20are%20constructed%20during%20clinical%20interviews&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20research%20in%20science%20teaching&rft.au=Sherin,%20Bruce%20L.&rft.date=2012-02&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=166&rft.epage=198&rft.pages=166-198&rft.issn=0022-4308&rft.eissn=1098-2736&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/tea.20455&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1018377587%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1018377587&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ989355&rfr_iscdi=true