Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How a Student Uses Knowledge as a Resource to Solve Scientific Problems: A Case Study on Science Learning as Rediscovery

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inspired by a theoretical view of knowledge as a resource, this study explored in detail how a student used knowledge as a resource when she engaged in problem-solving about rocks and what she learned as a result of the practice of solving scientific problems. The context of the study was an inquiry project conducted in an earth science course for preservice elementary teachers offered in a university in Korea. In the project, students were given three different rocks and asked to figure out how each rock had been formed. Data included a student’s written report about her inquiry and interviews with her, which were analyzed qualitatively. It was revealed that to solve the rock problems, the student used different types of knowledge as resources—everyday knowledge, personally internalized disciplinary knowledge, and externally retrieved scientific knowledge. The ways the student utilized the knowledge involved three distinctive processes—activation, adaptation, and evaluation of the resources, each of which had subordinate processes of using knowledge—elicitation, search, refinement, combination, selection, and deactivation of the resources. As a result of the scientific problem-solving, the student learned the usefulness and value of knowledge, enhanced previous knowledge, and realized both the limitations of her knowledge and the need for learning new knowledge. Based on these findings, the study proposed a new framework that conceptualized science learning as rediscovery (SLR) and discussed science pedagogies suitable to the SLR framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abioui, M. (2016). Need for popularization in geoscience: Narrative and education. ASRO Journal of Education, 1, 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45, 47, 49, 51.

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1964/1969). Some psychological and educational limitations of learning by discovery. In H. O. Andersen (Ed.), Readings in science education for the secondary school (pp. 97–113). The Macmillan Company.

  • Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2013). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 121–137). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., Schwarz, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). What we call misconceptions may be necessary stepping-stones toward making sense of the world. The Science Teacher, 83(3), 69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M.-F., & Brown, D. E. (2010). Conceptual resources in self-developed explanatory models: The importance of integrating conscious and intuitive knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2367–2392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903575755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119–142. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 385–400). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction.

  • Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. Physics Education Research, American Journal of Physics, 68(Suppl. 7), S52–S59. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6, 51–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, P. M., & Finley, F. N. (1992). Variable uses of alternative conceptions: A case study in current electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostyuchenko, Y., Pushkar, V., & Abioui, M. (2021). Review of “theorizing the future of science education research” edited by Vaughan Prain and Brian Hand. Science & Education, 30, 775–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00196-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., Elby, A., & Coffey, J. E. (2013). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. National Science Teachers Association Press.

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffold to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 416–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903013488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

  • Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 16–31). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R. (2004, July 12–13). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning science [Paper presentation]. Meeting of high school science laboratories: Role and vision, Washington, DC, United States.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Núñez-Oviedo, M. C., & Clement, J. (2008). A competition strategy and other modes for developing mental models in large group discussion. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 117–138). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez-Oviedo, M. C., & Clement, J. (2019). Large scale scientific modeling practices that can organize science instruction at the unit and lesson levels. Frontiers in Education, 4, 68. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez-Oviedo, M. C., Clement, J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Developing complex mental models in biology through model evolution. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 173–193). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S. (2011). Characteristics of abductive inquiry in earth science: An undergraduate case study. Science Education, 95, 409–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20424

  • Oh, P. S. (2017). The roles and importance of critical evidence (CE) and critical resource models (CRMs) in abductive reasoning for earth scientific problem solving. Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 426–446. (In Korean with an English abstract) https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2017.41.3.426

  • Oh, P. S. (2019). Features of modeling-based abductive reasoning as a disciplinary practice of inquiry in earth science. Science & Education, 28, 731–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00058-w

  • Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2013). Modeling sunspots. The Science Teacher, 80(6), 51–56.

  • Osborne, J. (1998). Science education without a laboratory? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 156–175). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S. (2004). Abduction as a logic and methodology of discovery: The importance of strategies. Foundations of Science, 9, 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FODA.0000042843.48932.25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parnafes, O. (2012). Developing explanations and developing understanding: Students explain the phases of the moon using visual representation. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 359–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2012.716885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, L. R. (2002). Petrology: The study of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • Richards, A. J., Jones, D. C., & Etkina, E. (2020). How students combine resources to make conceptual breakthroughs. Research in Science Education, 50, 1119–1140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9725-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2016). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rule, P., & John, V. M. (2015). A necessary dialogue: Theory in case study research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915611575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabo, H. C., Goodhew, L. M., & Robertson, A. D. (2016). University student conceptual resources for understanding energy. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, 010126. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2000). Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2001). Shifting sands: A case study of conceptual development as competition between alternative concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 731–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010006572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2008). Conceptual resources for learning science: Issues of transience and grain-size in cognition and cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1027–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701485082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S., de Trafford, T., & Quail, T. (2006). Conceptual resources for constructing the concepts of electricity: The role of models, analogies and imagination. Physics Education, 41, 155–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (1998). The nature of students’ informal science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 901–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wee, S. M., Cho, H., Kim, J. S., & Kim, Y. J. (2007). Characteristics of high school students’ conceptual understanding about minerals and rocks. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 28, 415–430. (In Korean with an English abstract) https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2007.28.4.415

  • Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science: Time for a re-appraisal. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 3–15). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G., & Clement, J. (2015). Identifying multiple levels of discussion-based teaching strategies for constructing scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 82–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.966257

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Education, Gyeongin National University of Education, Sammak-ro 155, Manan-gu, Anyang, Gyeonggi-do, 13910, Republic of Korea

    Phil Seok Oh

Authors
  1. Phil Seok Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phil Seok Oh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oh, P.S. How a Student Uses Knowledge as a Resource to Solve Scientific Problems: A Case Study on Science Learning as Rediscovery. Sci & Educ 33, 213–247 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00350-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00350-2

Search

Navigation