Explanations and Teleology in Chemistry Education

It has been commonly assumed that teleological explanations are unnecessary and have no place in the physical sciences. However, there are indications that teleology is fairly common in the instructional explanations of teachers and students in chemistry classrooms. In this study we explore the role and nature of teleological explanations and the conditions that seem to warrant their use in chemistry education. We also analyse the learning implications of developing explanations of chemical phenomena within a teleological stance. Our study is based on the qualitative analysis of the instructional explanations presented in traditional chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Our results indicate that teleological explanations are in fact present in these textbooks and help provide an explanatory reason for the occurrence of chemical transformations. Their use is tightly linked to the existence of a rule, principle, or law that governs the behaviour of a chemical system, and that explicitly or implicitly implies the minimisation or maximisation of some intrinsic property. This law or principle tends to provide a sense of preferred direction in the evolution of a transformation. Although teleological explanations seem to have heuristic pedagogical value in chemistry education, they may also lead students to develop alternative conceptions and unwarranted overgeneralisations.

[1]  Peter C. Jurs,et al.  Chemistry: The Molecular Science , 2001 .

[2]  Jim Jardine,et al.  Explaining Science in the Classroom , 1997 .

[3]  Onno De Jong,et al.  Exploring the use of multiple analogical models when teaching and learning chemical equilibrium , 2005 .

[4]  Dorothy L. Gabel,et al.  Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future , 1999 .

[5]  P. Ball From alchemy to chemistry , 2007, Nature.

[6]  Freeman J. Dyson,et al.  The same and not the same , 1995 .

[7]  C. Hempel,et al.  Studies in the Logic of Explanation , 1948, Philosophy of Science.

[8]  M. Grene,et al.  The world view of physics , 1952 .

[9]  Kathryn F. Cochran The content of science: a constructivist approach to its teaching and learning , 1997 .

[10]  Richard Phillips Feynman Atoms in motion , 2007 .

[11]  王祖浩 孙丹儿 杨惠仙 Chemistry:The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change评述 , 2007 .

[12]  L. S. Brown Chemistry: The Molecular Science, 2nd edition (Olmsted, J. III; Williams, G.M.) , 1998 .

[13]  Norman G. Lederman,et al.  Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge , 2002 .

[14]  D. Bob Gowin,et al.  Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected Essays , 1978 .

[15]  R. Horwood Explanation and description in science teaching , 1988 .

[16]  David R. Klein Organic chemistry I as a second language , 2003 .

[17]  Jon Ogborn,et al.  Explaining Science in the Classroom , 1996 .

[18]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education , 1998 .

[19]  Norman G. Lederman,et al.  Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and its Implications for Science Education , 2001 .

[20]  Francis Marion Miller Chemistry: Structure and Dynamics , 1983 .

[21]  S. Carey,et al.  Functional explanation and the function of explanation , 2006, Cognition.

[22]  Yves Chevallard,et al.  La transposition didactique : du savoir savant au savoir enseigné / , 1985 .

[23]  L. Shulman Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching , 1986 .

[24]  Allan G. Harrison,et al.  In search of explanatory frameworks: an analysis of Richard Feynman's lecture 'Atoms in motion' , 2000 .

[25]  A. Johnstone Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem , 1991 .

[26]  Zoubeida R. Dagher,et al.  Verbal Explanations Given by Science Teachers: Their Nature and Implications. , 1992 .

[27]  C. Allen,et al.  Nature's Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology , 1998 .

[28]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Models in explanations, Part 1 : Horses for courses? , 1998 .

[29]  Anat Zohar,et al.  Lifting the taboo regarding teleology and anthropomorphism in biology education—heretical suggestions , 1998 .

[30]  H. Wellman,et al.  Knowledge acquisition in foundational domains. , 1998 .

[31]  Loretta L. Jones,et al.  Chemical Principles: The Quest for Insight , 1999 .

[32]  D. Kelemen Function, goals and intention: children’s teleological reasoning about objects , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  American Educational Research Aassociation , 1985 .

[34]  Mike Watts,et al.  The secret life of the chemical bond: students’ anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding , 1996 .

[35]  Laurence Viennot Reasoning in Physics: The Part of Common Sense , 2001 .

[36]  Theodore L. Brown Chemistry: The Central Science , 1981 .

[37]  Francisco J. Ayala,et al.  Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology , 1970, Philosophy of Science.

[38]  E. Jungwirth Do Students Accept Anthropomorphic and Teleological Formulations as Scientific Explanations , 1979 .

[39]  F. Keil,et al.  Explanation and understanding , 2015 .

[40]  H. Bartov,et al.  Teaching students to understand the advantages and disadvantages of teleological and anthropomorphic statements in biology , 1981 .

[41]  Pinchas Tamir,et al.  Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena , 1991 .

[42]  R. Kozma,et al.  The Roles of Representations and Tools in the Chemistry Laboratory and Their Implications for Chemistry Learning , 2000 .

[43]  H. Bartov Can Students Be Taught to Distinguish between Teleological and Causal Explanations , 1978 .

[44]  M. Wittrock Handbook of research on teaching , 1986 .

[45]  Explanation and Teleology , 1972, Philosophy of Science.

[46]  K. Taber,et al.  LEARNERS’ EXPLANATIONS FOR CHEMICAL PHENOMENA , 2000 .

[47]  Vicente A Talanquer,et al.  Commonsense Chemistry: A Model for Understanding Students' Alternative Conceptions , 2006 .

[48]  I. Sigel,et al.  HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY , 2006 .

[49]  Dimitris Psillos,et al.  Anthropomorphism and Animism in Early Years Science: Why Teachers Use Them, how They Conceptualise Them and What Are Their Views on Their Use , 2004 .

[50]  Peter J. Fensham,et al.  The Content Of Science: A Constructive Approach To Its Teaching And Learning , 1994 .