Pseudo-explanations

A topic in Learners' conceptions and thinking

Explanations

Explanations are answers to 'why' type questions. Explanation is a core scientific practice.

Read about scientific explanation

Pseudo-explanations

Pseudo-explanations have the surface features of explanation, withouit explaining.

"Pseudoexplanations may be characterised as because-type-responses to why-type- questions which do not logically fit the phenomenon to be explained into a wider conceptual scheme. It may be that the attempt at explanation is too vague or the logic itself is faulty, or the 'explanation' could be circular, or simply call on the way things are, or make some appeal to authority. Pseudoexplanations may concern 'I know that is because', rather than 'that is because'.|

Taber & Watts, 2000, p.348

Explanation is a key feature of science, and constructing and evaluating explanations can be considered core scientific practices. School science should introduce learners to the role of explanation in science, and something of what makes for a good explanation.

Read about teaching about scientific explanations

In  learners' own thinking and discourse, we often find statements that have the general form of explanations, but which do not amount to substantive scientific explanations. These might be termed pseudoexplanations or pseudo-explanations.

Taber and Watts (2000) discussed a number of types of 'pseudoexplanations', illustrated with examples of student comments collected in the Understanding Chemical Bonding research project.

Some features of pseudoexplanations:

Taber and Watts (2000: 348-349) suggested that student's attempts at explanation often comprised

Pseudoexplanations can be identified by considering the questions (Taber & Watts, 2000: 348-349):

  • (a) does the utterance have the surface features of an explanation ("because", "so", "therefore"),
  • (b) is the utterance logically consistent in its own terms, and does it match the accepted criteria for a good explanation?
  • (c) does the explanation match the norms of curricular science (is the [science] 'right'?)
(a) surface structure (of an explanation)(b) logically coherent /sound(c) scientifically correctstatus as an explanation
No––not an explanation
YesNo–pseudoexplanation
YesYesNoalternative explanation
YesYesYesscientific explanation
Based on Table 2, Taber & Watts, 2000: 348-348

Subjective and objective understanding

There is often a difference between the kind of understanding that satisfies an individual – they feel they understand now, something now makes sense to them – and the depth of understanding that would suffice in producing a scientific explanation.

"In ordinary life we say that something has been understood if it has been reduced to familiar terms. Thus, we say we understand the emission of a photon by an atom if we can picture it as the firing of a bullet i.e., by analogy with a familiar experience; similarly we feel we understand the domination of one nation by another because we ourselves are relata of the domination relation. But in neither of these cases have we set up an explanation proper [scientific explanation] when just pointing to familiar similes; that is, cogent understanding is unnecessary for [subjective] understanding"

Bunge, 1988

This raises an important point for teachers. In teaching we often use comparisons – analogies, metaphors, similes – to 'make the unfamiliar familiar'. This can be very useful for introducing abstract concepts in a way that engages students and makes them seem less threatening and strange. However, unless we move learners on form these comparisons they make feel they have sufficient understanding and later present these comparisons as if scientific explanations.

Read about making the unfamiliar familiar

Read about analogies used to introduce scientific ideas

Read about similes used to introduce scientific ideas

Read about metaphors used to introduce scientific ideas

Work cited:
facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet