Advertisement

Identifying Changes in a Student’s Mental Models and Stimulating Intrinsic Motivation for Learning During a Dialogue Regulated by the Teachback Technique: a Case Study

  • Joan Aliberas
  • Rufina GutiérrezEmail author
  • Mercè Izquierdo
Article
  • 96 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to show how an innovative technique can be used to introduce a method for uncovering intrinsic mechanisms that motivate changes in students’ mental models. The theoretical framework used to develop the method is based on the ONEPSY (ONtology, EPistemology and PSYchology) model. The ONEPSY model is rooted in the theoretical constructs of cognitive psychology (Johnson-Laird) and artificial intelligence on mechanistic mental models (de Kleer and Brown) as well as the psychological theories developed by Piaget and others about the construction of knowledge and cognitive mechanisms that enable us to learn and survive in the world. This method was used when regulating a dialogue between a teacher (interviewer) and a student (interviewee) and also when analysing this dialogue subsequently. Pask’s teachback technique was used to regulate the interview and showed its effectiveness for helping a student both to identify his difficulties and to be able to overcome them; it also helped him to develop the ability to build models that gradually move closer to scientific models based on intuitive reasoning (mental models). The emotions experienced by students during this process have been shown to be a decisive driving force—intrinsic motivation—for constructing and reconstructing their intuitive models and acquiring increasingly satisfactory mental models. The different regulatory processes controlled by the interviewer during the dialogue have also been outlined.

Keywords

ONEPSY model Teachback Dialogue regulation Emotion Mental model Intrinsic motivation 

Notes

Funding information

This research was funded by the Spanish Government (grant number EDU2015-66643-C2-1-P) and carried out within the ACELEC research group, acknowledged by the Catalan Government (grant number 2017SGR1399).

References

  1. Aliberas, J. (2012). Aproximació als fonaments epistemològics i psicològics per al disseny i aplicació d’una seqüència de ciències a l’ESO (Approach to the epistemological and psychological foundations for the design and application of a sequence of science in Secondary School). Tesi doctoral (PhD thesis). Barcelona: UAB. http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/117434/jam1de1.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 27 Dec 2018
  2. Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, B. L. (2013). Video-based analyses of motivation and interaction in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 906–928.Google Scholar
  3. Ardashevaa, Y., Norton-Meier, L., & Hand, B. (2015). Negotiation, embeddedness, and non-threatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 201–249.Google Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  5. Bamberger, Y. M., & Davis, E. A. (2013). Middle-school science students’ scientific modelling performances across content areas and within a learning progression. International Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 213–238.Google Scholar
  6. Bellocchi, A., Ritchie, S. M., Tobin, K., King, D., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2014). Emotional climate and high quality learning experiences in science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1301–1325.Google Scholar
  7. Boa, E. A., Wattanatorn, A., & Tagong, K. (2018). The development and validation of the Blended Socratic Method of Teaching (BSMT): an instructional model to enhance critical thinking skills of undergraduate business students. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39, 81–89.Google Scholar
  8. Bodomo, A., & Hu, X. (2011). Constructing a conversational learning community: a case study of knowledge construction an interactivity enhancement in web-based learning and teaching. Communicarion in Information Science and Management Engineering (CISME), 1(8), 27–32.Google Scholar
  9. Bolton, G. (2005). Taking responsibility for our stories: in reflective practice, action learning, and Socratic dialogue. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 271–280.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, H. I. (2005). Incommensurability reconsidered. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 36, 149–169.Google Scholar
  11. Bunge, M. (1959). Causality. The place of the causal principle in modern science. Cambridge. Mass: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., & Neilson, D. (2012). Discursive modes and their pedagogical functions in model-based inquiry (MBI) classrooms. nternational Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2393–2419.Google Scholar
  13. Caravita, S., & Hallden, O. (1994). Re-framing the problem of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 89–111.Google Scholar
  14. Cheung, D. (2018). The key factors affecting students’ individual interest in school science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 40(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  15. Damasio, A. (2018). The strange order of things. Life, feelings, and the making of cultures. New York: Pantheon Books. Spanish translation: J. Ros, El extraño orden de las cosas. La vida, los sentimientos y la creación de las culturas. Barcelona: Planeta, 2018.Google Scholar
  16. De Kleer, J., & Brown, J. S. (1981). Mental models of physical mechanism and their acquisition. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 285–309). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  17. De Kleer, J., & Brown, J. S. (1983). Assumptions and ambiguities in mechanistic mental models. In D. Y. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 155–190). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  18. De Kleer, J., & Brown, J. S. (1984). A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artificial Intelligence, 24(1), 7–83.Google Scholar
  19. De Witt, J., & Hohenstein, J. (2010). School trips and classroom lessons: an investigation into teacher–student talk in two settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 454–473.Google Scholar
  20. diSessa, A. A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdalle: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. diSessa, A. A. (2014). The construction of causal schemes: learning mechanisms at the knowledge level. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 795–850.Google Scholar
  22. di Sessa, A. A. (2017). Conceptual change in a microcosm: comparative analysis of a learning event. Human Development, 60(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
  23. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Sciences Education, 5, 61–84.Google Scholar
  24. Duit, R. (1999). Conceptual change approaches in science education. In W. Schnotz, E. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 263–282). Oxford: Pergamon (imprint of Elsevier Science).Google Scholar
  25. Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96, 369–391.Google Scholar
  26. Frijters, S., Dam, G., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2008). Effects of dialogic learning on value-loaded critical thinking. Learning and Instruction, 18, 66–82.Google Scholar
  27. Garrido, A. and Couso, D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about modelling: first steps towards a reflective participation in scientific practices. In: Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science education research: engaging learners for a sustainable future. Volume: Part 13. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  28. Giere, R. N. (2010). An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese, 172(2), 269–281.Google Scholar
  29. Green, S. (2016). Science and common sense: perspectives from philosophy and science education. Synthese, 1–24.Google Scholar
  30. Gutierrez, R. (1994). Coherencia del pensamiento espontáneo y causalidad. El caso de la dinámica elemental. (Coherence of spontaneous thinking and causality. The case of elementary dynamics). Tesis doctoral (PhD thesis). Madrid: Univ. Complutense. http://eprints.ucm.es/tesis/19911996/S/5/S5006201.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2018. 
  31. Gutierrez, R. (2001). Mental models and the fine structure of conceptual change. In: Pintó, R. and Suriñach, S. (Eds.) Physics Teacher Education Beyond 2000 (pp. 35–44). Paris: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  32. Gutierrez, R. (2003). Conversation Theory and self-learning. In: Psillos, D, Kariotoglou, P., Tselfes, V., Hatzikraniotis, E., Fassoulopoulos, G. and Kallery, M. (eds), Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society (pp. 43–49). Dordrecht, Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Gutierrez, R. (2017). Construcción del conocimiento espontáneo y del conocimiento científico II. Secuencia de enseñanza/aprendizaje basada en sucesiones de modelos: introducción a la electrostática elemental. (Construction of spontaneous knowledge and scientific knowledge II: A learning sequence based in models’ successions). Enseñanza de las ciencias, Número extraordinario (2017), 4337–4342.Google Scholar
  34. Gutierrez, R. and Ogborn, J. (1997). The process of Conceptual Change. Paper presented at ESERA. First International Conference. Rome, Italy. Paper available from the authors.Google Scholar
  35. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2013). Systematicity: the nature of science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Íñiguez, M. and Aliberas, J. (2015). Alumnos competentes requieren contextos grupales ricos. (Competent students require rich group contexts). Aula de Innovación Educativa, 243-244, 55–59.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jong, J. P., Chiu, M. H., & Chung, S. L. (2015). The use of modeling-based text to improve students’ modeling competencies. Science Education, 99(5), 986–1018.Google Scholar
  39. Kahn, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877–905.Google Scholar
  40. Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: the role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027.Google Scholar
  41. Kawasaky, K., Herrenkohl, L. R., & Yeary, S. A. (2004). Theory building and modeling in a sinking and floating unit: a case study of third and fourth grade students’ developing epistemologies of science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1299–1324.Google Scholar
  42. Kaya, S., Kablan, Z., & Rice, D. (2014). Examining question type and the timing of IRE pattern in elementary science classroom. International Journal of Human Sciences, 11(1), 621–641.Google Scholar
  43. Kaya, G., Şardağ, M., Çakmakcı, G., Doğan, N., İrez, S., & Yalaki, Y. (2016). Discourse patterns and communicative approaches for teaching nature of science. Education and Science, 41(185), 83–99.Google Scholar
  44. King, D., Ritchie, S., Sandhu, M., & Henderson, S. (2015). Emotionally intense science activities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1886–1914.Google Scholar
  45. Kolstø, S. D. (2018). Use of dialogue to scaffold students’ inquiry based learning. Nordina, 14(2), 154–169.Google Scholar
  46. Kuhn, D. (2012). The development of causal reasoning. WIREs Cognitive Science, 3(3), 327–335.Google Scholar
  47. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. López-Mota, A., López-Valentín, D., Rodríguez-Pineda, D., & Gutierrez, R. (2016). Use of models in designing and validating TSL: an example from chemistry. In J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto, & K. Hahl (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science education research: engaging learners for a sustainable future, Strand 5 (pp. 680–685). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  49. Margutti, P., & Drew, P. (2014). Positive evaluation of student answers in classroom instruction. Language and Education, 28(5), 436–458.Google Scholar
  50. Maxwell, M. and Melete (2014). How to use the Socratic method. Retrieved august 10, 2018 from: www.socraticmethod.net/how_to_use_the_socratic_method/using_the_socratic_method.html. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
  51. McNeil, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203–229.Google Scholar
  52. Mendoça, P. C., & Justi, R. (2013). The relationships between modelling and argumentation from the perspective of the model of modelling diagram. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2407–2434.Google Scholar
  53. Nelson, M. M., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Preservice elementary teachers’ evaluations of elementary students’ scientific models: an aspect of pedagogical content knowledge for scientific modelling. I J of Science Education, 34(12), 1931–1959.Google Scholar
  54. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3–44). Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  55. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Nola, R. (2004). Pendula, models, constructivism and reality. Science & Education, 13, 349–377.Google Scholar
  57. Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, cognition and learning. A cybernetic theory and methodology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  58. Pask, G. (1976). Conversation theory. Applications in education and epistemology. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  59. Pereira, A., Lima, P., & Felix, R. (2016). Explaining as mediated action. An analysis of pre-service teachers’ account of forces of inertia in non-inertial frames of reference. Science Education, 25, 343–362.Google Scholar
  60. Piaget, J. (1975). L’équilibration des structures cognitives. Problème central du développement. Paris: PUF. (The equilibration of cognitive structures: the central problem of intellectual development).Google Scholar
  61. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.Google Scholar
  62. Rea-Ramirez, M.A. (2008). Determining target models and effective learning pathways for developing understanding of biological topics. Chap. 3 of Clement, J. and Rea-Ramirez, M.A. (eds.). Model based learning and instruction in science. Dordrecht, the Netherland: Springer.Google Scholar
  63. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489–506.Google Scholar
  65. Russ, R. S., Scherrs, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: a framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(4), 499–525.Google Scholar
  66. Russ, R. S., Lee, V. R., & Sherin, B. L. (2012). Framing in cognitive clinical interviews about intuitive science knowledge: dynamic student understandings of the discourse interaction. Science Education, 96(4), 573–599.Google Scholar
  67. Schnotz, W., Vosniadou, E., & Carretero, M. (1999). New perspectives on conceptual change. Oxford: Pergamon (imprint of Elsevier Science).Google Scholar
  68. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, E., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Schwartz, 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.Google Scholar
  69. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: a fundamental characteristic of meaning interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.Google Scholar
  70. Sorensen, R. A. (1992). Thought experiments. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  71. Spada, H. (1994). Conceptual change or multiple representations? Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 113–116.Google Scholar
  72. Svoboda, J., & Passmore, C. (2013). The strategies of modeling in biology education. Science & Education, 22, 119–142.Google Scholar
  73. Tscholl, M., & Lindgren, R. (2016). Designing for learning conversations: how parents support children’s science learning within an immersive simulation. Science Education, 100(5), 877–902.Google Scholar
  74. Tumay, H. (2016). Reconsidering learning difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry: emergence in chemistry and its implications for chemical education. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 17, 229–245.Google Scholar
  75. Valdesolo, P., Shtulman, A., & Baron, A. S. (2017). Science is awe-some: the emotional antecedents of science learning. Emotion Review, 9(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
  76. Viennot, L. (1996). Raisonner en physique (Reasoning in physics). Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier.Google Scholar
  77. Vosniadou, E. (1994). Conceptual change in the physical sciences:Introduction. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 3–6.Google Scholar
  78. Vosniadou, E. (1999). Conceptual change research: state of the art and future directions. In W. Schnotz, E. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 3–13). Oxford, UK: Pergamon (imprint of Elsevier Science).Google Scholar
  79. White, B., Collins, A., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2011). The nature of scientific meta-knowledge. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling. Cognitive tools for scientific enquiry (pp. 41–75). NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  80. Williams, G., & Clement, J. J. (2015). Identifying multiple levels of discussion-based teaching strategies for constructing scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 82–107.Google Scholar
  81. Wu, H.-K. (2010). Modeling a complex system: using novice-expert analysis for developing an effective technology-enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 195–219.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations