Challenging Cognitive Construals: A Dynamic Alternative to Stable Misconceptions

Abstract

In biology education research, it has been common to model cognition in terms of relatively stable knowledge structures (e.g., mental models, alternative frameworks, deeply held misconceptions). For example, John D. Coley and Kimberley D. Tanner recently proposed that many student difficulties in biology stem from underlying cognitive frameworks called cognitive construals (CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11[3], 209–215 [2012]; CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14[1], ar8 [2015]). They argued that three such frameworks—teleology, anthropocentrism, and essentialism—cause undergraduate students to hold a range of misconceptions about the biological world. Our purpose in this article is to present an alternative perspective that considers student thinking to be dynamic and context sensitive. Using the example of cognitive construals, we argue that a dynamic perspective creates a burden of proof for claims of cognitive stability—to demonstrate that patterns of thinking are indeed stable across contexts. To illustrate our argument, we report on the results of a study designed to explore the stability of students’ apparent teleological, anthropocentric, and essentialist thinking. Our results are inconsistent with framework models. We propose instead that response patterns stem from students’ context-specific interpretations of the statements, consistent with dynamic models of cognition. Building on these preliminary findings, we discuss the implications of a dynamic view of cognition for biology education research and biology instruction.

Causal mapping as a teaching tool for reflecting on causation in human evolution

“…Education researchers have pointed out that often, we do not really know what a student is thinking because students are not given more prompts and opportunities to elaborate on their thinking (Kelemen, 2012;Kampourakis & Nehm, 2014 ;Gouvea & Simon, 2018).…”

“…Categorizing short student explanations based on simple phrases that students might use such as "in order to", "so that", "because it needs it", may be problematic because these tell us very little about the nuances of their thinking. Gouvea & Simon (2018) and Louca et al (2004) argue that students' explanations or endorsement of explanations may be much more context-dependent and dynamic compared to a view that these represent relatively stable cognitive frameworks for evolutionary reasoning.…”

“…We suspect that often, it may not be made clear to students what kind of causal explanation is expected of them, which may lead to educators incorrectly identifying a reasoning style as "wrong" or "teleological" (Gouvea & Simon, 2018;Louca et al, 2004), when it may be an adequate response based on student interpretations of less specific prompts. Lombrozo (2009) manipulated prompts by asking students questions such as "Why do flowers have trait X", and some students were also asked for a functional explanation such as "What purpose might X serve?…”

“…In fact, it has been argued that explanations referencing "need" or "function" for the existence of a biological phenomenon may be a shorthand intuitive understanding that the consequences of the need or function in the past would have brought about the phenomenon in the population, even if no explicit causal mechanism is given (Gouvea & Simon;2018;Lombrozo & Vasilyeva, 2017;Wright, 1976). This is in line with the point made by Evans & Rosengren (2018) that need-based explanations (as opposed to desire-based explanations) may provide a bridge towards biological explanations of evolutionary change by natural selection.…”

“…For example, Aunger & Curtis (2008) define need as "A task related to an evolutionarily significant aspect of an animal's ecological niche which requires goal-directed behaviour to solve". Fuentes (2019), in his textbook on biological anthropology, relates the concept of need to "socioecological selection pressures" and states that "All animals are subject to five basic kinds of challenges: the need to obtain food, to move around their habitat, to protect themselves from predators, and to compete for resources both with members of their own species and with other species." (p. 130, emphasis added).…”