The how's and why's of biological change: How learners neglect physical mechanisms in their search for meaning

This study describes the trends in students' explanations of biological change in organisms. A total of 96 student volunteers (8 students from each of 2nd, 5th, 8th, and 12th grades from 3 localities) were interviewed individually and each student was presented a series of graphics depicting natural phenomena. Students' explanations to questions of how something occurred were assigned to one of three categories (responses addressing how something occurred, why something occurred, and 'I don't know'). While the number of responses in each category was roughly equivalent in prominence across grade levels, the majority of students were unable to offer a causal explanation of how a phenomena occurred. An unexpected phenomenon was the students' predilection to redirect the interview question so they could answer them. If asked a how question, as they were in every interview instance, 32% the students answered with a 'why' response. The way biology is taught, the structure of biology or/and how we learn it could shed some light into this phenomenon and has implications for science educators.

[1]  Elizabeth Engel Clough,et al.  How Secondary Students Interpret Instances of Biological Adaptation. , 1985 .

[2]  A. diSessa.  Toward an Epistemology of Physics , 1993 .

[3]  Charles W. Anderson,et al.  Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution , 1986 .

[4]  Wesley C. Salmon,et al.  Causality and Explanation , 1998 .

[5]  Eric Schwitzgebel.  Children's Theories and the Drive to Explain , 1999 .

[6]  Edgar D. Greene,et al.  The logic of university students' misunderstanding of natural selection , 1990 .

[7]  Kathleen E. Metz.  Development of explanation: Incremental and fundamental change in children's physics knowledge , 1991 .

[8]  Isao Murayama.  Role of agency in causal understanding of natural phenomena , 1994 .

[9]  Ola Halldén,et al.  The evolution of the species: pupil perspectives and school perspectives , 1988 .

[10]  David Hammer,et al.  Misconceptions or P-Prims: How May Alternative Perspectives of Cognitive Structure Influence Instructional Perceptions and Intentions , 1996 .

[11]  M. Jensen,et al.  Investigating the Inconsistencies in College Student Responses to Natural Selection Test Questions , 1996 .

[12]  Sherry A. Southerland,et al.  Understanding students' explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p‐prims? , 2001 .

[13]  May C. Chen.  Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist , 1990, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[14]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Communities of Learning and Thinking, or A Context by Any Other Name , 1990 .

[15]  E. Mayr.  Cause and Effect in Biology: Kinds of causes, predictability, and teleology are viewed by a practicing biologist , 1961 .

[16]  E. Jungwirth.  Should natural phenomena be described teleologically or anthropomorphically?—a science educator's view , 1977 .

[17]  Ehud Jungwirth,et al.  The Problem of Teleology in Biology as a Problem of Biology-Teacher Education. , 1975 .

[18]  Richard Lesh,et al.  Beyond Constructivism , 2003 .

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

[20]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  The Nature of Naive Explanations of Natural Selection , 1998 .

[21]  Ron Good,et al.  Students' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison , 1995 .