Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science

By Rosemary S. Russ, Rachel E. Scherr, David M. Hammer, Jamie N. Mikeska. 2008

385 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b06ca3aadce5c11ddf94738f78de80dd091ba1cd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Brian J. Reiser
2. Edward F. Redish
3. Clark A. Chinn
4. David M. Hammer
5. Paul Hutchison
6. Corinne Zimmerman

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. David M. Hammer
2. Clark A. Chinn
3. Edward F. Redish
4. Ayush Gupta
5. Rosemary S. Russ
6. Ala Samarapungavan
7. Christina V. Schwarz
8. Brian J. Reiser

In Education

1. David M. Hammer
2. Ayush Gupta
3. Edward F. Redish
4. Clark A. Chinn
5. Rosemary S. Russ
6. Christina V. Schwarz
7. Minsu Ha
8. Ala Samarapungavan

Citations in the corpus

• Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments From Philosophy and Psychology (2011, background): “Recent research by Russ and her colleagues (Russ, Coffey, Hammer, & Hutchison, 2009 ; Russ, Scherr, Hammer, & Mikeska, 2008 ) has shown that even first-grade students grasp some components of the mechanisms discussed by Machamer et al.”
• Identifying Essential Epistemic Heuristics for Guiding Mechanistic Reasoning in Science Learning (2018, methodology): “Identifying entities, properties, and rules are important pieces of students’ mechanistic reasoning in process (Russ et al., 2008), including inventing or theorizing entities if they are not easily observable (e.g., Wilkerson-Jerde, Gravel, & Macrander, 2015).”
• The Case for Dynamic Models of Learners' Ontologies in Physics (2008, background): “Mechanism involves analyzing a phenomenon into component parts, establishing relationships among the parts and with their environment, and determining processes that allow chained reasoning ( Russ, Scherr, Hammer, & Mikeska, 2008 ).”
• Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: Knowing what students know about evolution (2012, background): “Alternative approaches, such as the analysis of causal language (diSessa, 1993), scoring the frequency of casual ‘‘chaining’’ (Russ et al., 2008), or evaluating explanations in the context of argumentative practices (Gotwals & Songer, 2010), may yield additional insights into student reasoning…”
• Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking (2009, background): “In other work (Russ et al., 2008), we explored students’ mechanistic reasoning using a discourse analysis framework we developed based on the philosophy of science.”