Abstract
Model-based reasoning has been introduced as an authentic way of learning science, and many researchers have developed technological tools for learning with models. This paper describes how a model-based tool, BioLogica™, was used to facilitate genetics learning in secondary 3-level biology in Singapore. The research team co-designed two different pedagogical approaches with teachers, both of which involved learner-centered “exploration and reflection” with BioLogica and teacher-led “telling” or “consolidation.” One group went through the stand-alone BioLogica units for all topics prior to a series of teacher-led instructions, whereas the other group was engaged in teacher-led activities after using BioLogica for each topic. Based on the results of a series of tests on genetics, the groups performed differently from what the teacher had expected. We explore how the design of the two approaches and interactions among students might have contributed to the results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Singapore schools have four terms in a school year, which follow the calendar year.
All names mentioned in this paper are pseudonyms.
Details at http://www3.moe.edu.sg/bluesky/tllm.htm.
We retained original transcripts with Singapore Colloquial Expressions (SCEs). SCEs often use plural verbs for singular nouns and present tense for past occurrences.
For effect sizes, a partial η2 = .01 is considered small, .06 medium, and .14 large.
The words “la,” “ah,” “lah,” “leh,” “ohr” and “meh” are all commonly used in SCE with subtle contextual differences. They usually come at the end of a clause or statement. They do not have any significant meaning, but emphasize and conclude the speaker’s statement.
A SCE that is typically used to convey speaker’s dismay or sarcasm to the other.
“Acting with disciplinary agency involves following accepted procedures and terminology with authority vested in the discipline so that a positive contribution depends only on its correspondence with established procedures (Greeno & van de Sande, 2007, p. 12).”
References
Barab SA, Hay KE, Yamagata-Lynch LC (2001) Constructing networks of action-relevant episodes: an in situ research methodology. J Learn Sci 10(1):63–112
Barron B (2003) When smart groups fail. J Learn Sci 12(3):307–359
Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR, Donovan S (eds) (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school, expanded edn. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18(1):32–42
Buckley BC, Gobert JD, Kindfield ACH, Horwitz P, Tinker RF, Gerlits B, Willett J (2004) Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica™: what do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? J Sci Educ Technol 13(1):23–41. doi:10.1023/B:JOST.0000019636.06814.e3
Buckley BC, Gobert JD, Horwitz P (2006) Using log files to track students’ model-based inquiry. Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS). Erlbaum, Mawah, pp 57–63
Buckley BC, Gobert JD, Horwitz P, O’Dwyer LM (2010) Looking inside the black box: assessing model-based learning and inquiry in BioLogica™. Int J Learn Technol 5(2):166–190
Chin C, Osborne J (2008) Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Stud Sci Educ 44(1):1–39. doi:10.1080/03057260701828101
Clement J (1989) Learning via model construction and criticism: protocal evidence on sources of creativity in science. In: Glover G, Ronntng R, Reynolds C (eds) Handbook of creativity: assessment, theory and research. Plenum, New York, pp 341–381
Clement J (2000) Model based learning as a key research area for science education. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):1041–1053
Dede C (2000) Emerging influences of information technology on school curriculum. J Curric Stud 32(2):281–303
Edelson DC, Gordin DN, Pea RD (1999) Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. J Learn Sci 8(3–4):391–450
Gallas K (1995) Talking their way into science: hearing children’s questions and theories responding with curricula. Teachers College Press, New York
Gobert JD (2000) A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: inferential power and barriers to understanding. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):937–977
Gobert JD, Buckley BC (2000) Special issue: introduction to model based teaching and learning in science education. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):891–894
Gobert JD, Pallant A (2004) Fostering students’ epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. J Sci Educ Technol 13(1):7–22
Gobert JD, Buckley B, Clarke CE (2004) Scaffolding model based reasoning: representations, cognitive affordances and learning outcomes. Paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA
Gobert JD, O’Dwyer L, Horwitz P, Buckley BC, Levy ST, Wilensky U (2011) Examining the relationship between students’ understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Int J Sci Educ 33(5):653–684
Greeno JG, van de Sande C (2007) Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educ Psychol 42(1):9–23. doi:10.1080/00461520709336915
Horwitz P, Burke E (2002) Technological advances in the development of the hypermodel. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana
Horwitz P, Christie MA (2000) Computer-based manipulatives for teaching scientific reasoning: an example. In: Jacobson MJ, Kozma RB (eds) Innovations in science and mathematics education: advanced designs for technologies of learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 163–191
Horwitz P, Gobert JD (2000) Fostering transfer from open-ended exploration to scientific reasoning (NSF-REC# 0087579). Grant awarded by National Science Foundation
Horwitz P, Gobert JD, Buckley BC (2009) Learning genetics from dragons: computer-based manipulatives to hypermodels. In: Jacobson MJ, Reimann P (eds) Designs for learning environments of the future: international perspectives from the learning sciences. Springer, New York, pp 61–88
Ingham AM, Gilbert JK (1991) The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. Int J Sci Educ 13(2):193–202
Jacobson MJ, Kim B, Pathak SA, Zhang B (2013) To guide or not to guide: issues in the sequencing of pedagogical structure in computational model-based learning. Interact Learn Environ. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.792845
Kapur M (2010) A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: unpacking the design components. Instr Sci 39(4):561–579. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3
Kapur M, Bielaczyc K (2012) Designing for productive failure. J Learn Sci 21(1):45–83. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.591717
Kim B, Hay KE (2005) The evolution of the intellectual partnership with a cognitive tool in inquiry-based astronomy laboratory. In: Koschmann T, Suthers DD, Chan T (eds) Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: the next 10 years!. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 281–290
Kozma RB (2000) The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In: Jacobson MJ, Kozma RB (eds) Innovations in science and mathematics education: advanced designs for technologies of learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 1–46
Krajcik JS, McNeill KL (2006, 16 March 2008). A learning goals driven design model for developing science curriculum. http://www.hice.org/iqwst/Papers/Krajcik_McNeil_Reise_AERA06.pdf
Krajcik J, Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Bass KM, Fredericks J, Soloway E (1998) Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: initial attempts by middle school students. J Learn Sci 7(3–4):313–350
Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Lehrer R, Schauble L (2000) The development of model-based reasoning. J Appl Dev Psychol 21(1):39–48
Loh B, Reiser BJ, Radinsky J, Edelson DC, Gomez LM, Marshall S (2001) Developing reflective inquiry practices: a case study of software, the teacher, and students. In: Crowley K, Schunn CD, Okada T (eds) Designing for science: implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 279–323
Pathak SA, Kim B, Jacobson MJ, Zhang B (2011) Learning the physics of electricity: a qualitative analysis of collaborative processes involved in productive failure. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 6(1):57–73. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9099-z
Penner DE (2001) Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Rev Res Educ 25:1–36
Schwartz DL, Bransford JD (1998) A time for telling. Cogn Instr 16(4):475–522. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233709
Sengupta P, Wilensky U (2011) Lowering the learning threshold: multi-agent-based models and learning electricity. In MS Khine, IM Saleh (eds.), Models and modeling: cognitive tools for scientific enquiry (pp. 141–171). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-94-007-0449-7_7
Stewart AD, Hunt DM (1982) The gentic basis of development. Blackie Academic and Professional, London
Tinker R, Horwitz P (2000) Modeling across the curriculum (IERI Planning Grant No. REC-0089198). National Science Foundation
Tsui CY, Treagust DF (2007) Understanding genetics: analysis of secondary students’ conceptual status. J Res Sci Teach 44(2):205
White BY, Frederiksen JR (2000) Technological tools and instructional approaches for making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In: Jacobson MJ, Kozma RB (eds) Innovations in science and mathematics education: advanced designs for technologies of learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 321–360
Wilensky U, Reisman K (2006) Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cogn Instr 24(2):171–209
Zhang BH, Liu X, Krajcik JS (2006) Expert models and modeling processes associated with a computer modeling tool. Sci Educ 90(4):579–604
Acknowledgments
The work described here was supported by the Learning Sciences Lab of National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University in Singapore (LSL 16/06 ZBH). The authors are now in different parts of the world. We would like to thank the teachers for their contributions from the start of the project, the students participated in the study, Feng Deng for his assistance in research implementation, Feifei Wang for conducting initial statistical analysis, Mitchell Colp on his advice on statistical analysis, and Xiuqin Lin for her technical support. We are also indebted for the helpful comments from our former colleagues, Kate T. Anderson, Kate Bielaczyc, Manu Kapur, and Steven Zuiker, the writing group members at the University of Calgary, and the anonymous reviewer of the journal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, B., Pathak, S.A., Jacobson, M.J. et al. Cycles of Exploration, Reflection, and Consolidation in Model-Based Learning of Genetics. J Sci Educ Technol 24, 789–802 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9564-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9564-6