Advertisement

Models and Modelling: Routes to More Authentic Science Education

  • John K. GilbertEmail author
Article

Abstract

It is argued that a central role for models and modelling would greatly increase the authenticity of the science curriculum. The range of ontological states available for the notion of ‘model’ is outlined, together with the modes available for their representation. Issues in the selection of models for and the development of modelling skills within the model-based curriculum are presented. It is suggested that learning within such a curriculum entails: acquiring an acceptable understanding of what a model is and how modelling takes place; having a developed capacity to mentally visualise models; understanding the natures of analogy and of metaphor, processes which are central to models and modelling. The emphases required in teaching for this learning to be supported are discussed. Finally, implications of the model-based curriculum for teacher education are evaluated. It is concluded that a great deal of detailed research and development will be needed if the potential of this change in emphasis within the science curriculum is to be realised.

Keywords

analogy and metaphor authentic science education learning models and modelling model-based curriculum models and modelling teacher education for models and modelling teaching models and modelling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adey, P.S. & Shayer, M. (1994). Really raising standards: Cognitive acceleration and academic achievement. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, M. & Millar, R. (1996). Learning the scientific ‘story’: A case study in the teaching and learning of elementary thermodynamics. Science Education, 80(3), 249–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailer-Jones, D.M. (1999). Tracing the development of models in the philosophy of science. In Magnani, Nersessian & Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 23–40). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S.A., Hay, K.E., Barnett, M. & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnea, N. (2000). Teaching and learning about chemistry and modelling with a computer-managed modelling system. In Gilbert & Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 307–324). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  6. Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 1st edn (pp. 19–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Buckley, B.C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christopherson, J.T. (1997). The growing need for visual literacy at the university. Paper presented at the 28th annual conference ‘Visionquest: Journeys towards Visual Literacy’ of the International Visual Literacy Association, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, S.L. & Gotch, A.J. (1998). Spatial perception skills of chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 206–209. Google Scholar
  10. Coll, R.K. & Treagust, D.F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of ionic bonding: A cross-age study. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri. Google Scholar
  11. DfEE. (1999). Science: The National Curriculum for England. London: Department for Education and Employment. Google Scholar
  12. Dori, Y.J. & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modelling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology and Society, 4(1), 61–74. Google Scholar
  13. Ealy, J.B. (1999). A student evaluation of molecular modelling in first year college chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 309–321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Francoeur, E. (1997). The forgotten tool: The design and use of molecular models. Social Studies of Science, 27, 7–40. Google Scholar
  15. Frederiksen, J.R., White, B.Y. & Gutwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: The importance of constructing derivational links among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 806–836. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gentner, D. (1988). Analogical inference and analogical access. In Prieditis (Ed.), Analogia (pp. 63–88). London: Pitman. Google Scholar
  18. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanism of analogical learning. In Vosniadou & Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  19. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert, S.W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–79. Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert, J. & Watts, D. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions, and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61–98. Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert, J.K. & Boulter, C. (1998). Learning science through models and modelling.In Fraser & Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Vol. 2(pp. 53–66). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  23. Gilbert, J.K., Boulter, C.J. & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In Gilbert & Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3–18). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  24. Gilbert, J.K., Boulter, C. & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97. Google Scholar
  25. 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(8), 799–822. Google Scholar
  26. Gunstone, R.F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In Fensham, Gunstone & White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 131–146). London: Falmer. Google Scholar
  27. Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic modeling for meaningful learning in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 1019–1041. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Halloun, I. (1998). Schematic concepts for schematic models of the real world: The Newtonian concept of force. Science Education, 82(2), 241–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for learning chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hesse, M. (1966). Models and analogies in science. London: Sheen and Ward. Google Scholar
  32. Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 541–562. Google Scholar
  33. Holton, G. (1995). Imagination in science. In Holton (Ed.), Einstein, history, and other passions (pp. 160–184). Woodbury, NJ: American Institute of Physics. Google Scholar
  34. Ingham, A.M. & Gilbert, J.K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026. Google Scholar
  35. Justi, R. (2001). Teachers’ views about models and modelling in science education. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 26–28 March, St. Louis, Missouri. Google Scholar
  36. Justi, R. & Gilbert, J.K. (1999). History and philosophy of science through models: The case of chemical kinetics. Science and Education, 8(2), 287–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Justi, R. & Gilbert, J.K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Justi, R. & Gilbert, J.K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369–1386. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Justi, R. & Gilbert, J.K. (In preparation). On the notion of ‘level’ in the understanding of the nature of ‘model.’ Google Scholar
  40. Kosma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J. & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  42. Luisi, P.L. & Thomas, R.M. (1990). The pictographic molecular paradigm: Pictorial communication in the chemical and biological sciences. Naturwissenschaften, 77, 67–74. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mainzer, K. (1999). Computational models and virtual reality: New perspectives on research in chemistry. Hyle, 5(2), 117–126. Google Scholar
  44. Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (2000). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: School of Education, King’s College London. Google Scholar
  45. Miller, A.I. (1987). Imagery and scientific thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  46. Oversby, J. (2000). Models and explanations in chemistry: The case of acidity. In Gilbert & Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 227–252). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  47. Penner, D.E. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 784–806. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Piburn, M.D., Reynolds, S.J., Leedy, D.E., McAuliffe, C.M., Birk, J.P. & Johnson, J.K. (2002). The hidden Earth: Visualization of geologic features and their subsurface geometry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans. Google Scholar
  49. Raghaven, K. & Glaser, R. (1995). Model-based analysis and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum. Science Education, 79(1), 37–61. Google Scholar
  50. Raghaven, K., Sartoris, M.L. & Glaser, R. (1998a). Impact of the MARS curriculum: The mass unit. Science Education, 82(1), 53–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raghaven, K., Sartoris, M.L. & Glaser, R. (1998b). Why does it go up? The impact of the MARS curriculum as revealed through changes in student explanations of a helium ballon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 547–567. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rouse, W.B. & Morris, N.M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 349–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reforms. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Google Scholar
  54. Stewart, J., Hafner, R., Johnson, S. & Finkel, E. (1992). Science as model building: Computers and high-school genetics. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 317–336. Google Scholar
  55. Suckling, C.J., Suckling, K.E. & Suckling, C.W. (1980). Chemistry through models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  56. Tomasi, J. (1988). Models and modelling in theoretical chemistry. Journal of Molecular Structure, 179, 273–292. Google Scholar
  57. Treagust, D.F. & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations, subject-specific instructional methods and activities, Vol. 8 (pp. 239–267). New York: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  58. Treagust, D.F., Harrison, A.G., Venville, G.J. & Dagher, Z. (1996). Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 213–229. Google Scholar
  59. Tuckey, H. & Selvaratnam (1993). Studies involving three-dimensional visualisation skills in chemistry. Studies in Science Education, 21, 99–121. Google Scholar
  60. Van Driel, J.H. & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141–1154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N. & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity of ReadingReadingU.K.

Personalised recommendations