15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A Model of How Different Biology Experts Explain Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study used a literature review and interviews with practicing biologists to develop the MACH model, a Venn diagram of the components research scientists include when explaining molecular and cellular mechanisms. Seven biologists from different subdisciplines included research Methods, Analogy, Context, and How the mechanism works to explain the systems they investigate.

          Abstract

          Constructing explanations is an essential skill for all science learners. The goal of this project was to model the key components of expert explanation of molecular and cellular mechanisms. As such, we asked: What is an appropriate model of the components of explanation used by biology experts to explain molecular and cellular mechanisms? Do explanations made by experts from different biology subdisciplines at a university support the validity of this model? Guided by the modeling framework of R. S. Justi and J. K. Gilbert, the validity of an initial model was tested by asking seven biologists to explain a molecular mechanism of their choice. Data were collected from interviews, artifacts, and drawings, and then subjected to thematic analysis. We found that biologists explained the specific activities and organization of entities of the mechanism. In addition, they contextualized explanations according to their biological and social significance; integrated explanations with methods, instruments, and measurements; and used analogies and narrated stories. The derived methods, analogies, context, and how themes informed the development of our final MACH model of mechanistic explanations. Future research will test the potential of the MACH model as a guiding framework for instruction to enhance the quality of student explanations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth.

          People feel they understand complex phenomena with far greater precision, coherence, and depth than they really do; they are subject to an illusion-an illusion of explanatory depth. The illusion is far stronger for explanatory knowledge than many other kinds of knowledge, such as that for facts, procedures or narratives. The illusion for explanatory knowledge is most robust where the environment supports real-time explanations with visible mechanisms. We demonstrate the illusion of depth with explanatory knowledge in Studies 1-6. Then we show differences in overconfidence about knowledge across different knowledge domains in Studies 7-10. Finally, we explore the mechanisms behind the initial confidence and behind overconfidence in Studies 11 and 12. Implications for the roles of intuitive theories in models of concepts and cognition are discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Qualitative researcher and evaluation methods

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Monitoring Editor:
                Journal
                CBE Life Sci Educ
                CBE-LSE
                CBE-LSE
                CBE-LSE
                CBE Life Sciences Education
                American Society for Cell Biology
                1931-7913
                1931-7913
                01 June 2015
                21 February 2015
                : 14
                : 2
                : ar20
                Affiliations
                [1]*Purdue International Biology Education Research Group (PIBERG), Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
                [2] Visualization in Biochemistry Education (VIBE) Research Group, Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to: Caleb M. Trujillo ( calebtru@ 123456gmail.com ).
                Article
                CBE-14-12-0229
                10.1187/cbe.14-12-0229
                4477736
                25999313
                de07e5a8-292e-4a65-b72c-e74ebab3b5a9
                © 2015 C. M. Trujillo et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2015 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

                “ASCB®,” “The American Society for Cell Biology®,” and “Molecular Biology of the Cell®” are registered trademarks of The American Society of Cell Biology.

                History
                : 10 December 2014
                : 14 February 2015
                : 20 February 2015
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                June 1, 2015

                Education
                Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article