Skip to main content

The Centrality of Models for Knowledge Claims in Science Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Modelling Learners and Learning in Science Education

Abstract

There is an extensive research programme in science education which reports on student thinking, knowledge, understanding and learning in science subjects. Research reports in journals commonly present knowledge claims about these important foci, and often in such reports these core notions (thinking, understanding, knowing, learning) are treated as relatively unproblematic - as though they can be ‘taken for granted’ within the discourse of science education, and as if the process of uncovering thinking, understanding, knowing and learning is relatively straightforward given available research techniques. Yet such foci - another’s thinking, knowing, understanding and learning - are not observables, but rather have to be inferred from phenomena that can be observed in research. Indeed, these foci are arguably at the level of theoretical constructs that act as components of explanatory schemes for making sense of people’s behaviours (such as how they respond to research probes). It is argued that researchers need to be more aware of the difficulties in accessing the mental lives of others, and to be more explicit in their reports about the modelling processes involved in developing accounts of the thinking, understanding, knowing and learning of research participants.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abimbola, I. O. (1988). The problem of terminology in the study of student conceptions in science. Science Education, 72(2), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students’ understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, B. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils’ preconceptions in science. European Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. (2006). Science, normal science and science education – Thomas Kuhn and Education. Learning for Democracy, 2(2), 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 487–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1999). Students’ reasoning about chemical reactions: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 645–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bivall, P., Ainsworth, S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2011). Do haptic representations help complex molecular learning? Science Education, 95(4), 700–719. doi:10.1002/sce.20439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P. J., & Lucas, A. M. (Eds.). (1993b). Children’s informal ideas in science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Educational Research Association. (2000). Good practice in educational research writing. Southwell, UK: British Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevallard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 131–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., Lay, M. C., & Taylor, N. (2008). Scientists and scientific thinking: Understanding scientific thinking through an investigation of scientists views about superstitions and religious beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 197–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Studies and fields: Directions of research in science education. Studies in Science Education, 25, 173–197. doi:10.1080/03057269508560053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1985). A conceptual framework for science education: The case study of force and movement. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasersfeld, E. v. (1988). The reluctance to change a way of thinking. Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 83–90. Retrieved from http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/EvG/papers/110.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasersfeld, E. v. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71–93. doi:10.1002/tea.20386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2003b). Models, causation, and explanation. In A. J. Sanford (Ed.), The nature and limits of human understanding (pp. 26–46). London: T&T Clark Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1974/1977). Second thoughts on paradigms. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 293–319). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrove (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Child psychology in practice 6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153–196). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1992). Old wine in new bottles: A problem with constructivist epistemology. Philosophy of Education Yearbook 1992. Retrieved from available at http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES-Yearbook/92_docs/Matthews.HTM

  • Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 114–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R., Treagust, D. F., & Garnett, P. (1986). Identification of secondary students’ misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure concepts using a diagnostic instrument. Research in Science Education, 16, 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy (Corrected version ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1934/1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrove (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 51–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of educational research. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratinen, I. J. (2011). Primary student-teachers’ conceptual understanding of the greenhouse effect: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 1–27. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.587845.

  • Sjøberg, S. (2010). Constructivism and learning. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 485–490). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2006a). Beyond constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42, 125–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2006c). Constructivism’s new clothes: The trivial, the contingent, and a progressive research programme into the learning of science. Foundations of Chemistry, 8(2), 189–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2007). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: A guide for teachers. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2008b). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science Education, 17(2–3), 179–218. doi:10.1007/s11191-006-9056-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2009b). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2013a). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (Forthcoming). Methodological issues in science education research: A perspective from the philosophy of science. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. B. (1924/1998). Behaviorism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. B. (1967). What is behaviourism? In J. A. Dyal (Ed.), Readings in psychology: Understanding human behavior (2nd ed., pp. 7–9). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. T. (1998). Research, theories of learning, principles of teaching and classroom practice: Examples and issues. Studies in Science Education, 31, 55–70. doi:10.1080/03057269808560112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yenilmez, A., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Enhancing students’ understanding of photosynthesis and respiration in plant through conceptual change approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 81–87. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-0358-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Taber, K.S. (2013). The Centrality of Models for Knowledge Claims in Science Education. In: Modelling Learners and Learning in Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7648-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics