Understanding Co-development of Conceptual and Epistemic Understanding through Modeling Practices with Mobile Internet

  • Suna Ryu
  • Yuhwha Han
  • Seoung-Hey Paik


The present study explores how engaging in modeling practice, along with argumentation, leverages students’ epistemic and conceptual understanding in an afterschool science/math class of 16 tenth graders. The study also explores how students used mobile Internet phones (smart phones) productively to support modeling practices. As the modeling practices became more challenging, student discussion occurred more often, from what to model to providing explanations for the phenomenon. Students came to argue about evidence that supported their model and how the model could explain target and related phenomena. This finding adds to the literature that modeling practice can help students improve conceptual understanding of subject knowledge as well as epistemic understanding.


Scientific argumentation Modeling practice Epistemic practice Mobile technology Learning resources 


  1. Achieve (2012) Next Generation Science Standards. from
  2. Berland LK, McNeill KL (2010) A learning progression for scientific argumentation: understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Sci Educ 94:765–793. doi: 10.1002/sce.20402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berland LK, Reiser BJ (2009) Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Sci Educ 93:26–55. doi: 10.1002/sce.20286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell T, Oh PS, Neilson D (2012) Discursive modes and their pedagogical functions in model-based inquiry (mbi) classrooms. Int J Sci Edu 34(15):2393–2419. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.704552
  5. Chen Y-S, Kao T-C, Yu G-J, Sheu J-P (2004) A mobile butterfly-watching learning system for supporting independent learning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international workshop on paper presented at the wireless and mobile technologies in education, 2004Google Scholar
  6. Chin C, Osborne J (2010) Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: case studies in science classrooms. J Learn Sci 19:230–284. doi: 10.1080/10508400903530036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark DB, Sampson V, Weinberger A, Erkens G (2007) Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educ Psychol Rev 19(3):343–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobb P, McClain K, Gravemeijer K (2003) Learning about statistical covariation. Cogn Instruct 21(1):1–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colella V (2000) Participatory simulations: building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. J Learn Sci 9(4):471–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010) Common core state standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Corbin JM, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duschl RA (2008) Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Rev Res Educ 32(1):268–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duschl R, Maeng S, Sezen A (2011) Learning progressions and teaching sequences: a review and analysis. Stud Sci Educ 47(2):123–182. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2011.604476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engle RA, Conant FR (2002) Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cogn Instruct 20(4):399–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erduran S, Simon S, Osborne J (2004) Tapping into argumentation: developments in the application of toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Sci Educ 88:915–933Google Scholar
  16. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (2009) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Transaction PublishersGoogle Scholar
  17. Grosslight L, Unger C, Jay E, Smith CL (1991) Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. J Res Sci Teach 28(9):799–822. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660280907 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jimenez-Aleixandre MP, Erduran S (2007) Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  19. Klopfer E, Squire K, Jenkins H (2002) Environmental detectives: Pdas as a window into a virtual simulated world. In: Proceedings of IEEE international workshop on paper presented at the wireless and mobile technologies in education, 2002Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn TS (1977) The essential tension. Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Philos Sci 1Google Scholar
  21. Kuhn D (1993) Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Sci Educ 77(3):319–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell RL, Schwartz RS (2002) Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 39(6):497–521. doi: 10.1002/tea.10034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2006) Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In: Sawyer RK (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 371–388Google Scholar
  24. Luchini K, Quintana C, Curtis M, Murphy R, Krajcik J, Soloway E, Suthers D (2002) Using handhelds to support collaborative learning. Paper presented at the proceedings of the conference on computer support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL CommunityGoogle Scholar
  25. Manz E (2012) Understanding the codevelopment of modeling practice and ecological knowledge. Sci Educ 96(6):1071–1105. doi: 10.1002/sce.21030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNeill KL, Krajcik J (2008) Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. J Res Sci Teach 45(1):53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Research Council (2007) Taking science to school: learning and teaching in grades K-8. National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. National Research Council (2011) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st skills. Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Nicolaidou I, Kyza EA, Terzian F, Hadjichambis A, Kafouris D (2011) A framework for scaffolding students’ assessment of the credibility of evidence. J Res Sci Teach 48(7):711–744. doi: 10.1002/tea.20420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nussbaum EM, Edwards OV (2011) Critical questions and argument stratagems: a framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. J Learn Sci 20:443–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S (2004) Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach 41:994-1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
  33. Passmore CM, Svoboda J (2011) Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. Int J Sci Educ 34(10):1535–1554. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.577842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pluta WJ, Chinn CA, Duncan RG (2011) Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. J Res Sci Teach 48(5):486–511. doi: 10.1002/tea.20415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryu S, Lombardi D (in press) Coding classroom interactions for collective and individual engagement. Educ PsycholGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryu S, Sandoval WA (2012) Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Sci Educ 96(3):488–526Google Scholar
  37. Scheuer O, Loll F, Pinkwart N, McLaren BM (2010) Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Intern J Comput-Support Collab Learn 5(1):43–102Google Scholar
  38. Schwarz CV, Meyer J, Sharma A (2007) Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. J Sci Teach Educ 18(2):243–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwarz CV, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Kenyon L, Achér A, Fortus D, Krajcik J (2009) Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):632–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharples M, Arnedillo-Sánchez I, Milrad M, Vavoula G (2009) Mobile learning. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. Soloway E, Norris C, Blumenfeld P, Fishman B, Krajcik J, Marx R (2001) Log on education: handheld devices are ready-at-hand. Commun ACM 44(6):15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Songer NB, Kelcey B, Gotwals AW (2009) How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):610–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stewart J, Cartier JL, Passmore CM (2005) Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In: Donovan S, BransfordT J (eds) How students learn. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 515–565Google Scholar
  44. Tinker RF, Krajcik JS (2001) Portable technologies: science learning in context. ERIC, Innovations in science education and technologyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Treagust DF, Chittleborough G, Mamiala TL (2002) Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. Int J Sci Educ 24:357–368. doi: 10.1080/09500690110066485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Windschitl M, Thompson J, Braaten M (2008) How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cogn Instruct 26:310–378. doi: 10.1080/07370000802177193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Education and Information StudiesUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Korea National University of EducationCheongjuKorea

Personalised recommendations