Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Preservice science teachers coding science simulations: epistemological understanding, coding skills, and lesson design

  • Cultural and Regional Perspectives
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

National and state science learning standards urge K-12 educators to offer authentic Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics learning experiences. One way to fulfill this goal is to prepare preservice science teachers to integrate computer science skills, such as coding, into science education learning contexts that can benefit from it. This study implemented Coding in Scientific Modeling Lessons (CS-ModeL) in a science teacher education course. CS-ModeL is the name of an instructional module and of an online tool, and they aim to support preservice science teachers’ use of coding in scientific modeling and lesson design. Preservice teachers used block-based coding to create science simulations, performed analogous physical experiments, and designed lessons in which they support scientific modeling with coding. This mixed methods study investigated if and how participation in CS-ModeL affected preservice teachers’ epistemological understanding of scientific models and modeling along with their understanding of computer science concepts. This study also examined coding-enhanced scientific modeling activities in their designed lessons. Results showed an overall improvement in participants’ epistemological understanding of models and modeling, and in their understanding of computer science concepts. Participants’ lessons featured activities in which block-based coding simulations are used either as a research tool or as an exploration tool. Additionally, most lessons targeted computer science practices, but not concepts. It was also found that participants’ lessons were not aligned with their epistemological understanding of models and modeling. Study limitations, implications for research and practice, and directions for future research are discussed.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aivaloglou, E., & Hermans, F. (2016). How kids code and how we know: An exploratory study on the Scratch repository. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, pp. 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960325

  • Akerson, V. L., Townsend, J. S., Donnelly, L. A., Hanson, D. L., Tira, P., & White, O. (2009). Scientific modeling for inquiring teachers network (SMIT’N): The influence on elementary teachers’ views of nature of science, inquiry, and modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9116-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S. (2016). Fostering synergistic learning of computational thinking and middle school science in computer-based intelligent learning environments. Vanderbilt University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bau, D., Gray, J., Kelleher, C., Sheldon, J., & Turbak, F. (2017). Learnable programming: Blocks and beyond. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 505–518). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R. (2017). Instructional scaffolding in STEM education. Springer International Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, T., & Stumpf, S. (2013). End-user experiences of visual and textual programming environments for Arduino. In Y. Dittrich, M. Burnett, A. Mørch, & D. Redmiles (Eds.), End-user development (Vol. 7897, pp. 25–39). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 1–25. Retrieved from http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf

  • Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, B. C. (2012). Model-based learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2300–2303). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, S. J. (2011). Implementing and integrating effective teaching strategies including features of lesson study in an elementary science methods course. The Teacher Educator, 46(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2011.552666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M., Lin, J., Chang, Y., Li, H., Wu, T., & Lin, D. (2014). Developing explanatory models of magnetic phenomena through model-based inquiry. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(3), 351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou, G. L., & Anderson, O. R. (2010). A study of undergraduate students understanding of heat conduction based on mental model theory and an ontology-process analysis. Science Education, 94(5), 825–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, S. L., Deuermeyer, E., & Quek, F. (2017). Supporting scientific modeling through curriculum-based making in elementary school science classes. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B., & Cullin, M. (2004). Supporting perspective teachers’ conceptions of modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2010). Studying thought processes of online peer tutors through stimulated-recall interviews. Higher Education, 59(5), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9273-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demuth, C. (2013). Ensuring rigor in qualitative research within the field of cross-cultural psychology. In Y. Kashima, E. S. Kashima, & R. Beatson (Eds.), Steering the cultural dynamics: Selected papers from the 2010 Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (p. 8). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/iaccp_papers/109/

  • Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock’n’roll (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonteyn, M. E., Kuipers, B., & Grobe, S. J. (1993). A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 3(4), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, G. M., & Gaddis, M. L. (1990). Introduction to biostatistics: Part 5, statistical inference techniques for hypothesis testing with nonparametric data. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 19(9), 1054–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(05)82571-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galdas, P. (2017). Revisiting bias in qualitative research: Reflections on its relationship with funding and impact. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917748992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gal-Ezer, J., & Stephenson, C. (2010). Computer science teacher preparation is critical. ACM Inroads, 1(1), 61–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Google, & Gallup. (2015). Images of computer science: Perceptions among students, parents and educators in the U.S. Retrieved from http://g.co/cseduresearch

  • Gouvea, J., & Passmore, C. (2017). ‘Models of’ versus ‘models for’: Toward an agent-based conception of modeling in the science classroom. Science & Education, 26(1–2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9884-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and boolean logic. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE ’17, pp. 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017723

  • Grover, S., Cooper, S., & Pea, R. (2014). Assessing computational learning in K-12. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591713

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985–1990. Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández, M. I., Couso, D., & Pintó, R. (2015). Analyzing students’ learning progressions throughout a teaching sequence on acoustic properties of materials with a model-based inquiry approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 356–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9503-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrenkohl, L. R., Tasker, T., & White, B. (2011). Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.534309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemological research: Implications for learning and teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 353–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hokayem, H., & Schwarz, C. (2014). Engaging fifth graders in scientific modeling to learn about evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9395-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbert, N., & Wilensky, U. (2018). Designing educational video games to be objects-to-think-with. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1487302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivankova, N. V., Herbey, I. I., & Roussel, L. A. (2018). Theory and practice of using mixed methods in translational research: A cross-disciplinary perspective. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. (2012). Constructionism. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 35–46). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazempour, M., & Amirshokoohi, A. (2014). Transitioning to inquiry-based teaching: Exploring science teachers’ professional development experiences. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9(1), 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P. (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 281–291). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kenyon, L., Davis, E. A., & Hug, B. (2011). Design approaches to support preservice teachers in scientific modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9225-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Oliver, J. S. (2018). Supporting preservice teachers’ use of modeling: Building a water purifier. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E., Oliver, J. S., & Jackson, D. F. (2016). Connecting the imperatives of STEM, NGSS, deep learning and assessment: A conceptual paper. National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., Yuan, J., Vasconcelos, L., Shin, M, & Hill, R. (2018). Debugging during block-based programming. Instructional Science, 46(5), 767–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9453-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A. (1992). Epistemology, practical work and academic skills in science education. Science and Education, 1(3), 273–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00430277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, T. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2010). Reliability and validity of instruments. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 337–341). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila, T. (2009). Some consequences of the pragmatic approach to representation: Decoupling the model-target dyad and indirect reasoning. Proceedings of the Founding Conference of European Philosophy of Science Association. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3263-8_12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila, T. (2011). Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42(2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? The Science Teacher, 79(3), 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krell, M., & Krüger, D. (2016). Testing models: A key aspect to promote teaching activities related to models and modelling in biology lessons? Journal of Biological Education, 50(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2015.1028570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krell, M., Upmeier zu Belzen, A., & Krüger, D. (2012). Students’ understanding of the purpose of models in different biological contexts. International Journal of Biology Education, 3(1a), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, K. (2017). Student’s misconception of programming reflected on problem-solving plans. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 1(4), 14. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v1i4.19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (2001). Preservice teachers’ understanding and teaching of the nature of science: An intervention study. The Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 1(2), 135–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Developing model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00049-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(4), 324–327. https://doi.org/10.4103/2F2249-4863.161306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000137349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maiorana, F., Berry, M., Nelson, M., Lucarelli, C., Phillipps, M., Mishra, S., & Benassi, A. (2017). International perspectives on CS teacher formation and professional development. pp. 236–237. https://doi.org/10.1145/3059009.3059067

  • Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference, pp. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/2713609.2713610

  • McCrum-Gardner, E. (2008). Which is the correct statistical test to use? British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 46(1), 38–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2007.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, S. (2017, December 7). The future of coding in schools. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/future-coding-schools

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mladenović, M., Boljat, I., & Žanko, Ž. (2018). Comparing loops misconceptions in block-based and text-based programming languages at the K-12 level. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 1483–1500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9673-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namdar, B., & Shen, J. (2015). Modeling-oriented assessment in K-12 science education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 993–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1012185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2019). On qualitizing. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 11(2), 98–131. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v11n2editorial2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., Zaranis, N., & Orfanakis, V. (2016). Using scratch and app inventor for teaching introductory programming in secondary education. A case study. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(3/4), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2016.10001505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, C., Schwarz, C. V., & Mankowski, J. (2016). Developing and using models. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 109–134). NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, A. M. (2016). The coding revolution. Scientific American, 35(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0816-42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plano Clark, V., & Creswell, J. W. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, T. W., & Barnes, T. (2015). Comparing textual and block interfaces in a novice programming environment. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Computing Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project Growing Up Thinking Scientifically (GUTS). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.projectguts.org/resources

  • Qian, Y., & Lehman, J. (2017). Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: A literature review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Clement, J., & Núñez-Oviedo, M. C. (2008). An instructional model derived from model construction and criticism theory. In J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 23–43). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch, B., & Krüger, D. (2018). Preservice biology teachers’ conceptions about the tentative nature of theories and models in biology. Research in Science Education, 48(1), 71–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9559-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renken, M., Peffer, M., Otrel-Cass, K., Girault, I., & Chioccariello, A. (2016). Simulations as scaffolds in science education. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rinke, C. R., Gladstone-Brown, W., Kinlaw, C. R., & Cappiello, J. (2016). Characterizing STEM teacher education: Affordances and constraints of explicit STEM preparation for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 116(6), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samarapungavan, A., Tippins, D., & Bryan, L. (2015). A modeling-based inquiry framework for early childhood science learning. In K. C. Trundle & M. Saçkes (Eds.), Research in early childhood science education (pp. 259–277). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720–744. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support pre-service K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Meyer, J., & Sharma, A. (2007). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9039-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seel, N. M. (2017). Model-based learning: A synthesis of theory and research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 931–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9507-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. Y. (1957). Nonparametric statistics. The American Statistician, 11(3), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2685679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, J., Lei, J., Chang, H., & Namdar, B. (2014). Technology-enhanced, modeling-based instruction (TMBI) in science education. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 529–540). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049800400208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stammen, A., Malone, K., & Irving, K. (2018). Effects of modeling instruction professional development on biology teachers’ scientific reasoning skills. Education Sciences, 8(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swidan, A., Hermans, F., & Smit, M. (2018). Programming misconceptions for school students. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - ICER ’18, pp. 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3230995

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upmeier zu Belzen, A., & Krüger, D. (2010). Modellkompetenz im Biologieunterricht [Model competence in biology teaching]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 16, 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2005). Preservice teachers as ICT designers: An instructional design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2008). Learning and teaching about scientific models with a computer-modeling tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos, L., & Kim, C. (2020a). Coding in scientific modeling lessons (CS-ModeL). Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1247–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09724-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos, L., & Kim, C. (2020b). Preparing preservice teachers to use block-based coding in scientific modeling lessons. Instructional Science, 48(1), 765–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09527-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D. (2015). Blocks, text, and the space between: The role of representations in novice programming environments. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), pp. 301–302.

  • Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). Scaling up instructional improvement through teacher professional development: Insights from the local systemic change initiative. CPRE Policy Briefs. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/32

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(1), 682–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson, M. H., Andrews, C., Shaban, Y., Laina, V., & Gravel, B. E. (2016). What’s the technology for? Teacher attention and pedagogical goals in a modeling-focused professional development workshop. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9453-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. H., & Macrander, C. A. (2015). Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 396–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9497-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008a). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008b). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiang, L., & Passmore, C. (2015). A framework for model-based inquiry through agent-based programming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9534-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM, 60(4), 55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00215.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, D. M. (2009). How to do a case study. In Teaching research methods in the humanities and social sciences. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/donna_zucker/14/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucas Vasconcelos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies.

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

Vasconcelos, L., Kim, C. Preservice science teachers coding science simulations: epistemological understanding, coding skills, and lesson design. Education Tech Research Dev 70, 1517–1549 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10119-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10119-7

Keywords

Navigation