Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 16, Issue 7–8, pp 653–697 | Cite as

Mediated Modeling in Science Education

  • Ibrahim A. HallounEmail author
Article

Abstract

Following two decades of corroboration, modeling theory is presented as a pedagogical theory that promotes mediated experiential learning of model-laden theory and inquiry in science education. Students develop experiential knowledge about physical realities through interplay between their own ideas about the physical world and particular patterns in this world. Under teacher mediation, they represent each pattern with a particular model that they develop through a five-phase learning cycle, following particular modeling schemata of well-defined dimensions and rules of engagement. Significantly greater student achievement has been increasingly demonstrated under mediated modeling than under conventional instruction of lecture and demonstration, especially in secondary school and university physics courses. The improved achievement is reflected in more meaningful understanding of course materials, better learning styles, higher success rates, lower attrition rates and narrower gaps between students of different backgrounds.

Keywords

experiential learning learning cycle mediation model modeling inquiry paradigm schema 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Preliminary drafts of this article were presented as plenary conference papers (Halloun 2004b, 2004c).

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for All Americans Project 2061. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Project 2061. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Association of American Colleges and Universities (2002). Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College. AAC&U, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bachelard, G.: 1940, La Philosophie du Non, Quadrige (4th edn, 1994)/Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Bower G.H., Morrow D.G. (1990). Mental Models in Narrative Comprehension. Science 247:44–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bullock B. (1979). The Use of Models to Teach Elementary Physics. Physics Education 14:312–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunge M. (1967). Scientific Research I & II. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Casti J.L. (1989). Alternate Realities. Mathematical Models of Nature and Man. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Clement J. (1989). Learning via Model Construction and Criticism. In: Glover G., Ronning R., Reynolds C. (eds), Handbook of Creativity, Assessment, Theory and Research. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Clement J. (1993). Using Bridging Analogies and Anchoring Intuitions to Deal with Students’ Preconceptions in Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30(10):1241–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobern W.W. (1993). College Students’ Conceptualizations of Nature: An Interpretive World View Analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30(8):935–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cobern W.W. (1995). Science Education as an Exercise in Foreign Affairs. Science & Education 4(3):287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doerr H.M. (1996). Integrating the Study of Trigonometry, Vectors, and Force Through Modeling. School Science and Mathematics 96(8):407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drake S. (1974). Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Erduran S. (2001). Philosophy of Chemistry: An Emerging Field with Implications for Chemistry Education. Science & Education 10(6):581–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ericsson K.A., Charness N. (1994). Expert Performance. Its Structure and Acquisition. American Psychologist 49(8):725–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eylon B.S., Reif, F. (1984). Effects of Knowledge Organization on Task Performance. Cognition and Instruction 1(1):5–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feuerstein, R. & Jensen, M.R.: 1980, ‚Instrumental Enrichment: Theoretical Basis, Goals, and Instruments’, The Educational Forum,44: 401–423Google Scholar
  19. Fisher K.M. (1990). Semantic Networking: The New Kid on the Block. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27(10):1001–1018Google Scholar
  20. Gee B. (1978). Models as a Pedagogical Tool: Can We Learn From Maxwell?. Physics Education 13:287–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gentner D., Stevens A.L. (eds) (1983). Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  22. Giere R.N. (1988). Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Giere R.N. (eds) (1992). Cognitive Models of Science Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XV. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  24. Giere R.N. (1994). The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Theories. Philosophy of Science 61:276–296Google Scholar
  25. Gilbert S.W. (1991). Model Building and a Definition of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28(1):73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glas E. (2002). Klein’s Model of Mathematical Creativity. Science & Education 11(1):95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldberg, F., Bendall, S. & Bach, N.: 1991, ‚Development of Computer-Video-Based Learning Activities and Assessment of Student Understanding in the Domain of Geometrical Optics’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Hafner R., Stewart J. (1995). Revising Explanatory Models to Accommodate Anomalous Genetic Phenomena: Problem Solving in the “Context of Discovery”. Science Education 79(2):111–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hake R.R. (1987). Promoting Student Crossover to the Newtonian World. American Journal of Physics 55(10):878–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hake R.R. (1992). Socratic Pedagogy in the Introductory Physics Laboratory. The Physics Teacher 30:546–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Halloun, I.: 1984, The Use of Models in Teaching Newtonian Mechanics, PhD dissertation, Arizona State University, TempeGoogle Scholar
  32. Halloun I. (1986). Le Réalisme Naif et L’apprentissage de la Physique. Recherches Pédagogiques 17:23–47Google Scholar
  33. Halloun I. (1994), Teaching Model Construction for Solving Physics Problems. Recherches Pédagogiques 19:5–17Google Scholar
  34. Halloun I. (1996). Schematic Modeling for Meaningful Learning of Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(9):1019–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Halloun I. (1998a). Schematic Concepts for Schematic Models of the Real World. Science Education 82(2):239–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Halloun I. (1998b). Interactive Model-Based Education: An Alternative to Outcomes-Based Education in Physics. South African Journal of Science 94:313–318Google Scholar
  37. Halloun I. (2000). Model-Laden Inquiry: A Prescription for Effective Physics Instruction. THEMES 1(4):339–355Google Scholar
  38. Halloun I. (2001a). Apprentissage par Modélisation: La Physique Intelligible. Phoenix Series/Librairie du Liban Publishers, BeirutGoogle Scholar
  39. Halloun I. (2001b). Student Views about Science: A comparative Survey. Phoenix Series/Educational Research Center, Lebanese University, BeirutGoogle Scholar
  40. Halloun, I.: 2003, ‚Evaluating Science and Technology Learning Materials: The Case of the Modeling Curriculum’, Paper presented at UNESCO Regional Workshop on the Evaluation of MST Curricula, Beirut, Lebanon.Google Scholar
  41. Halloun I. (2004a). Modeling Theory in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  42. Halloun, I.: 2004b, ‚Modeling Theory for Paradigmatic Evolution’, Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, SAARMSTE, Durban, South Africa, pp. 325–342.Google Scholar
  43. Halloun, I.: 2004c, ‚Mediated Modeling for Meaningful Learning of Science’, Proceedings of the 8th Annual Science and Math Teachers Conference. SMEC & UNESCO, BeirutGoogle Scholar
  44. Halloun I., Hestenes D. (1985a). Common Sense Concepts about Motion. American Journal of Physics 53(11):1056–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Halloun I., Hestenes D. (1985b). The Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students. American Journal of Physics 53(11):1043–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Halloun I., Hestenes D. (1987). Modeling Instruction in Mechanics. American Journal of Physics 55(5):455–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Halloun I., Hestenes D. (1998). Interpreting VASS Dimensions and Profiles. Science & Education 7(6):553–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Harré R. (1970). The Principles of Scientific Thinking. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  49. Harré R. (1978). Models in Science. Physics Education 13(5):275–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Harte J. (2002). Toward a Synthesis of the Newtonian and Darwinian Worldviews. Physics Today 55(10):29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Heller, P., Foster, T. & Heller, K.: 1997, ‚Cooperative Group Problem Solving Laboratories for Introductory Classes’, in E. F. Redish & J. S. Rigden (eds), The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities. Proceedings of ICUPE, American Institute of Physics, College Park, pp. 913–933Google Scholar
  52. Helm H., Novak J. (eds) (1983). Proceedings of the International Seminar: Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics. Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  53. Hempel C.G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. The Free Press, Macmillan New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Hesse M.B. (1970). Models and Analogies in Science. University of Notre Dame Press, South BendGoogle Scholar
  55. Hestenes, D.: 1995. Modeling software for learning and doing physics. in C. Bernardini, C.Tarsitani and M. Vincentini (eds.), Thinking Physics for Teaching, Plenum, New York, pp.25–66Google Scholar
  56. Hestenes D., Wells M., Swackhamer G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher 30(3):141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Johnson-Laird P.N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Joshua S., Dupin J.J. (1989). Représentations et Modélisations : Le Débat Scientifique dans la Cclasse et l’Apprentissage de la Physique. Peter Lang, BerneGoogle Scholar
  59. Joshua, S. & Dupin, J.J.: 1999, Introduction à la Didactique des Sciences et des Mathématiques. 2nd Ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar
  60. Justi R., Gilbert J.K. (2002). Models and Modelling in Chemical Education. In: Gilbert J.K., de Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D.F., van Driel J.H. (eds), Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 47–68Google Scholar
  61. Karplus R. (1977). Science Teaching and the Development of Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 14(2):169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lakoff G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  63. Matthews M.R. (2000). Time for Science Education. How Teaching the History and Philosophy of Pendulum Motion Can Contribute to Science Literacy. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Moreira, M.A. & Greca, H.: April 1995, ‚Kinds of Mental Representations – Models, Propositions, and Images – Used by Students and Physicists Regarding the Concept of Field’, Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  65. Mortimer E.F. (1995). Conceptual Change or Conceptual Profile Change?. Science & Education 4(3):267–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  67. National Science Teachers Association. (1995). Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School Science. Vol. 3. A High School Framework for National Science Education Standards. NSTA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  68. Nersessian N.J. (1995). Should Physicists Preach what they Practice? Constructive Modeling in Doing and Learning Physics. Science & Education 4(3):203–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Novak J.D. (1990). Concept Mapping: A Useful Tool for Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27(10):937–949Google Scholar
  70. Novak J. (eds) (1993). Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  71. Novak J. (eds) (1987). Proceedings of the Second International Seminar: Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Vol I, II, III. Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  72. Novak J.D., Gowin D.B., Johansen G.T. (1983). The Use of Concept Mapping and Knowledge Vee Mapping with Junior High School Science Students. Science Education 67:625–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Passmore C., Stewart J. (2002). A Modeling Approach to Teaching Evolutionary Biology in High Schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(3):185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Raman V.V. (1980). Teaching Aristotelian Physics through Dialogue. The Physics Teacher 18(8):580–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Redish E. (1994). Implications of Cognitive Studies for Teaching Physics. American Journal of Physics 62(9):796–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Reif F., Allen S. (1992). Cognition for Interpreting Scientific Concepts: A Study of Acceleration. Cognition and Instruction 9(1):1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reif F., Heller J.I. (1982). Knowledge Structure and Problem Solving in Physics. Educational Psychologist 17(2):102–127Google Scholar
  78. Reif F., Larkin J.H. (1991). Cognition in Scientific and Everyday Domains: Comparison and Learning Implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28(9):733–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Roychoudhury A., Roth W.M. (1996). Interactions in an Open-Inquiry Physics Laboratory. International Journal of Science Education 18(4):423–445Google Scholar
  80. Seiler G., Tobin K., Sokolic J. (2001). Design, Technology, and Science: Sites for Learning, Resistance, and Social Reproduction in Urban Schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(7):746–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shore L.S., Erickson M.J., Garik P., Hickman P., Stanley E., Taylor E.F., Trunfio P.A. (1992). Learning Fractals by “Doing Science”: Applying Cognitive Apprenticeship Strategies to Curriculum Design and Instruction. Interactive Learning Environments 2(3&4):205–226Google Scholar
  82. Smit J.J.A., Finegold M. (1995). Models in Physics: Perceptions Held by Final-Year Prospective Physical Science Teachers Studying at South African Universities. International Journal of Science Education 17(5):621–634Google Scholar
  83. Steen L.A. (eds) (1990). On the Shoulders of Giants. New Approaches to Numeracy. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  84. Taconis R., Ferguson-Hessler M.G.M., Broekkamp H. (2001). Teaching Science Problem Solving: An Overview of Experimental Work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(4):442–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Viau, E.A.: 1994, ‚The Mind as a Channel: A Paradigm for the Information Age’, Educational Technology Review 3: 5–10Google Scholar
  86. Wartofsky M.W. (1968). Conceptual Foundations of Scientific Thought. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  87. White B.Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal Models, Conceptual Change, and Science Education. Cognition and Instruction 10(1):1–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Windschitl M. (2004). Folk Theories of “Inquiry”: How Preservice Teachers Reproduce the Discourse and Practice of an Atheoretical Scientific Method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(5):481–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Research CenterLebanese UniversityJouniehLebanon

Personalised recommendations