Spontaneous Anthropocentric Language Use in University Students' Explanations of Biological Concepts Varies by Topic and Predicts Misconception Agreement.

IF 4.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Catie Nielson, Emma Pitt, Michal Fux, Kristin de Nesnera, Nicole Betz, Jessica S Leffers, Kimberly D Tanner, John D Coley
{"title":"Spontaneous Anthropocentric Language Use in University Students' Explanations of Biological Concepts Varies by Topic and Predicts Misconception Agreement.","authors":"Catie Nielson, Emma Pitt, Michal Fux, Kristin de Nesnera, Nicole Betz, Jessica S Leffers, Kimberly D Tanner, John D Coley","doi":"10.1187/cbe.24-07-0198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous research has shown that students employ intuitive thinking when understanding scientific concepts. Three types of intuitive thinking-essentialist, teleological, and anthropic thinking-are used in biology learning and can lead to misconceptions. However, it is unknown how commonly these types of intuitive thinking, or cognitive construals, are used spontaneously in students' explanations across biological concepts and whether this usage is related to endorsement of construal-consistent misconceptions. In this study, we examined how frequently undergraduate students across two U.S. universities (<i>N</i> = 807) used construal-consistent language (CCL) to explain in response to open-ended questions related to five core biology concepts (e.g., evolution), how CCL use differed by concept, and how this usage was related to misconceptions agreement. We found that the majority of students used some kind of CCL in the responses to these open-ended questions and that CCL use varied by target concept. We also found that students who used CCL in their response agreed more strongly with misconception statements, a relationship driven by anthropocentric language use, or language that focused on humans. These findings suggest that American university students use intuitive thinking when reasoning about biological concepts with implications for their understanding.</p>","PeriodicalId":56321,"journal":{"name":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","volume":"24 1","pages":"ar11"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11974531/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-07-0198","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research has shown that students employ intuitive thinking when understanding scientific concepts. Three types of intuitive thinking-essentialist, teleological, and anthropic thinking-are used in biology learning and can lead to misconceptions. However, it is unknown how commonly these types of intuitive thinking, or cognitive construals, are used spontaneously in students' explanations across biological concepts and whether this usage is related to endorsement of construal-consistent misconceptions. In this study, we examined how frequently undergraduate students across two U.S. universities (N = 807) used construal-consistent language (CCL) to explain in response to open-ended questions related to five core biology concepts (e.g., evolution), how CCL use differed by concept, and how this usage was related to misconceptions agreement. We found that the majority of students used some kind of CCL in the responses to these open-ended questions and that CCL use varied by target concept. We also found that students who used CCL in their response agreed more strongly with misconception statements, a relationship driven by anthropocentric language use, or language that focused on humans. These findings suggest that American university students use intuitive thinking when reasoning about biological concepts with implications for their understanding.

大学生在解释生物概念时自发使用的人类中心主义语言因主题而异,并预测误解的一致性。
先前的研究表明,学生在理解科学概念时采用直觉思维。三种类型的直觉思维——本质主义、目的论和人择思维——在生物学学习中被使用,并可能导致误解。然而,目前尚不清楚这些类型的直觉思维或认知识解在学生对生物概念的解释中自发使用的频率,以及这种使用是否与认可识解一致的误解有关。在这项研究中,我们调查了两所美国大学的本科生(N = 807)在回答与五个核心生物学概念(如进化)相关的开放式问题时使用解释一致语言(CCL)的频率,CCL的使用如何因概念而异,以及这种使用如何与误解一致相关。我们发现,大多数学生在回答这些开放式问题时使用了某种CCL,并且CCL的使用因目标概念而异。我们还发现,在回答中使用CCL的学生更强烈地同意误解陈述、以人类为中心的语言使用或关注人类的语言所驱动的关系。这些发现表明,美国大学生在推理生物学概念时使用直觉思维,这对他们的理解有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cbe-Life Sciences Education
Cbe-Life Sciences Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
13.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE), a free, online quarterly journal, is published by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). The journal was launched in spring 2002 as Cell Biology Education—A Journal of Life Science Education. The ASCB changed the name of the journal in spring 2006 to better reflect the breadth of its readership and the scope of its submissions. LSE publishes peer-reviewed articles on life science education at the K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. The ASCB believes that learning in biology encompasses diverse fields, including math, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science, and the interdisciplinary intersections of biology with these fields. Within biology, LSE focuses on how students are introduced to the study of life sciences, as well as approaches in cell biology, developmental biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, and proteomics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信