Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 16, Issue 7–8, pp 751–773 | Cite as

Models and Modelling in Physics Education: A Critical Re-analysis of Philosophical Underpinnings and Suggestions for Revisions

  • Ismo Tapio KoponenEmail author
Article

Abstract

The model-based view (MBV) of science education, which strives for authenticity in science teaching, is currently seeking support from the philosophical positions related to the Semantic View of Theories (SVT). These recent advances are promising steps towards establishing a robust philosophical framework, but they need revision in so far as they are meant to apply to physics and physics education. It is suggested here that in physics education, attention needs to be guided to the notion of the empirical reliability of models and modelling, and to the methodological question of how empirical reliability is established in the process of making a match between theory and experiment. The suggested picture – intended for the purposes of physics teacher education – replaces the current more limited philosophical frameworks used in science education with one of a wider scope. Moreover, the revised philosophical background gives a more authentic picture of physics as science, and the modelling activity within it, than the other current stances in the science education.

Keywords

Physic Education Minimal Realism Methodological Question Physics Teacher Education Authentic Image 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adúriz-Bravo A., Izquierdo-Aymerich M. (2005), Utilising the ‘3P-model’ to Characterise the Discipline of Didactics of Science. Science & Education 12: 27–43Google Scholar
  2. Black M. (1962), Models and Metaphors. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackmore, J., Itagaki, R. & Tanaka, S. (eds.): 2001, Ernst Mach’s Vienna 1895–1930, Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchwald J.D. (1994), The Creation of Scientific Effects. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunge, M.: 1983, Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World. Treatise on Basic philosophy, Vol. 6, D. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartwright N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartwright N. (1999), The Dappled World. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang H. (2004), Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Clement J. (2000), Model Based Learning as Key Research Area for Science Education. International Journal of Science Education 22: 1041–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawford B.A., Cullin M.J. (2004), Supporting Prospective Teachers’ Conceptions of Modelling in Science. International Journal of Science Education 26: 1379–1401Google Scholar
  11. Darling K.M. (2002), The Complete Duhemian Underdetermination Argument: Scientific Language and Practice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 33: 511–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duhem, P.: 1914/1954, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (translation of La Théorie Physique: Son Objet, Sa Structure, 2nd ed., 1914 Paris), Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Fine A. (1996), The Shaky Game. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuchs, C.A., & Peres, A.: 2000, ‘Quantum Theory Needs No Interpretation’, Physics Today, March 2000, 70–71Google Scholar
  15. Giere R.N. (1988), Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Giere R.N. (1999), Science without Laws. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Giere R.N., Bickle J., Mauldin R.F. (2006), Understanding Scientific Reasoning, 5th ed. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert J.K., Pietrocola M., Zylbersztajn A., Franco C. (2000), Science and Education: Notions of Reality, Theory and Model. In: Gilbert J.K., Boulter C.J. (eds), Developing Models in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. Gobert J.D., Buckley B.C. (2000), Introduction to Model-based Teaching and Learning in Science Education. International Journal of Science Education 22: 891–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grandy R.E. (2003), What Are Models and Why Do We Need Them? Science & Education 12: 773–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hacking I. (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison A.G., Treagust D.F. (2000), A Typology of School Science Models. International Journal of Science Education 22: 1011–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heidelberger M. (1998), From Helmholtz’s Philosophy of Science to Hertz’ Picture Theory. In: Baird D., Hughes R.I.G., Nordmann A. (eds), Heinrich Hertz: Classical Physicist, Modern Philosopher. Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. Hestenes D. (1992), Modeling Games in the Newtonian World. American Journal of Physics 60: 732–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hesse M.B. (1963), Models and Analogies in Science. Seed and Ward, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Hughes R.I.G. (1997), Models and Representations. Philosophy of Science 67: S325–S336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Izquierdo-Aymerich M., Adúriz-Bravo A. (2003), Epistemological Foundations of School Science. Science & Education 12: 27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Justi R.S., Gilbert J.K. (2000), History and Philosophy of Science through Models: Some Challenges in the Case of “the atom”. International Journal of Science Education 22: 993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Justi R.S., 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: 369–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koponen, I.T. & Mäntylä, T.: 2006, ‘Generative Role of Experiments in Physics and in Teaching Physics: A suggestion for Epsitemological Reconstruction’, Science & Education 15, 31–54Google Scholar
  31. Koponen I.T., Mäntylä T., Lavonen J. (2004), The Role of Physics Departments in Developing Student Teachers’ Expertise in Teaching Physics. European Journal of Physics 25: 645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuhn T.S. (1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. Lakatos, I.: 1970, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Mach, E.: 1893/1960, The Science of Mechanics, 5th ed. (1st translation of Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung Historisch-Kritisch Dargestellt, 1893), Open Court, La Salle, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  35. Matthews M. (1994), Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Matthews M.R. (1997), Introductory Comments on Philosophy and Constructivism in Science Education. Science & Education 6: 5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morrison M. (1999), Models as Autonomous Agents. In: Morgan M.S., Morrison M. (eds), Models as Mediators. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Morrison, M. & Morgan, M.: 1999, ‘Models as Mediating Instruments’, in Morgan M. S. & Morrison M. (eds.), Models as Mediators, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Needham P. (1998), Duhem’s Physicalism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29: 33–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nersessian N.J. (1984), Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories. Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  41. Nersessian N.J. (1995), Should Physicists Preach What They Practice?. Science & Education 4: 203–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Niiniluoto I. (2002), Critical Scientific Realism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Nola R. (1997), Constructivism in Science and Science Education: A Philosophical Critique. Science & Education 6: 55–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nola R. (2004), Pendula, Models, Constructivism and Reality. Science & Education 13: 349–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Popper, K.: 1935/2002, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (translation of Logik der Forschung, 1935), Routledge Classics, Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Riordan, M.: 2003, ‘Science Fashions and Scientific Fact’, Physics Today, August 2003, 50Google Scholar
  47. Snyder J.L. (2000), An Investigation of the Knowledge Structures of Experts, Intermediates and Novices in Physics. International Journal of Science Education 22: 979–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Suppe, F.: 1977, The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd ed., University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  49. Suppes P. (1962), Models of Data. In: Nagel E., Suppes P., Tarski A. (eds), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the International Congress. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Driel J., Verloop N. (2002), Experienced Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Learning of Models and Modelling in Science Education. International Journal of Science Education 24: 1255–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Fraassen B. (1980), The Scientific Image. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Wartofsky, M.W.: 1979, ‘The Model Muddle: Proposals for an Immodest Realism’, in R.S. Cohen & M.W. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XLVIII, Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  53. Weinberg S. (1993), Dreams of a Final Theory. Vintage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Wells M., Hestenes D., Swackhamer G. (1995), A Modeling Method for High School Physics Instruction. American Journal of Physics 63: 606–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations