Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 843–864 | Cite as

Tensions Between Learning Models and Engaging in Modeling

Exploring Implications for Science Classrooms
  • Candice Guy-GaytánEmail author
  • Julia S. Gouvea
  • Chris Griesemer
  • Cynthia Passmore
SI: scientific practices

Abstract

The ability to develop and use models to explain phenomena is a key component of the Next Generation Science Standards, and without examples of what modeling instruction looks like in the reality of classrooms, it will be difficult for us as a field to understand how to move forward in designing curricula that foreground the practice in ways that align with the epistemic commitments of modeling. In this article, we illustrate examples drawn from a model-based curriculum development project to problematize and bring to the fore issues and tensions we observed through the course of modeling instruction. In doing so, we argue that instruction that is model-based may not be actualizing modeling as an epistemic practice to support student sensemaking. We suggest that this kind of enactment may be a result of the tensions between viewing models as content to be learned and modeling as a scientific practice in which the end products are not known ahead of time. We discuss the implications of our analysis for teacher learning and curriculum development.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank our collaborating teachers and other members of our research team for their work on this project. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who provided feedback for improvements to this manuscript. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL1348990.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Alonzo, A., & Elby, A. (2019). Beyond empirical adequacy: learning progressions as models for teachers. Cognition & Instruction, 37(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2003). When scientific models represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012a). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012b). Students’ framings and their participation in scientific argumentation. In M. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112.Google Scholar
  6. Braaten, M. (2019). Persistence of the two-worlds pitfall: learning to teach within and across settings. Science Education, 103(1), 61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson, J., Davis, E. A., & Buxton, C. (2013). Supporting the implementation of NGSS through research: curricular materials. Located online at https://www.narst.org/ngsspapers/curriculum.cfm.
  8. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. diSessa, A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843–900.Google Scholar
  12. Elby, A. (2019). Did the framework for K-12 science education trample itself? A reply to “Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: epistemic agency and the next generation science standards”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(4), 518–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: a cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In L. Bendixen & F. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: theory, research, and implications for practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Engle, R., & Conant, F. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., & Rosenfeld, S. (2016). High school students’ meta-modeling knowledge. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 787–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2018). The nature of scientific practice and science education. Science & Education, 27(5–6), 435–455.Google Scholar
  19. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: a cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gouvea, J., & Passmore, C. (2017). ‘Models of’ versus ‘models for’: towards an agent-based conception of modeling in the science classroom. Science & Education, 26(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grant, P. R. (1999). Ecology and evolution of Darwin’s finches. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Guy, C., Gouvea, J., Griesemer, C., & Passmore, C. (2015). Utilizing model-based reasoning to achieve curricular coherence in high school biology. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference in Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  25. Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16(7–8), 653–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping students’ epistemological resources. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R.E., Redish, E.F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In Mestre, J.P. (eds) Transfer of learning from a multidisciplinary perspective. Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Hammer, D., & Radoff, J. (2014). Children doing science: essential idiosyncrasy and the challenges of assessment. Commissioned paper for Successful out of school STEM learning: A consensus study, NRC Board on Education, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  29. Hammer, D., & Schifter, D. (2001). Practices of inquiry in teaching and research. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 441–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harlow, D. B., Bianchini, J. A., Swanson, L. H., & Dwyer, H. A. (2013). Potential teachers’ appropriate and inappropriate application of pedagogical resources in a model-based physics course: a “knowledge in pieces” perspective on teacher learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(9), 1098–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2007). Science teachers’ knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of a new syllabus on public understanding of science. Research in Science Education, 37(2), 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.Google Scholar
  34. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002a). 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
  36. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002b). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  38. Manz, E. (2015). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research (Vol. 85).Google Scholar
  39. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016a). Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026–2046.Google Scholar
  41. McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2016b). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: using classroom contexts to assess high-quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  45. Nersessian, N. J. (1989). Conceptual change in science and in science education. Synthese, 80(1), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nersessian, N. J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (Cambridge, pp. 133–153). Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  47. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  48. Odden, T. O. B., & Russ, R. S. (2018). Defining sensemaking: bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct. Science Education, 103(1), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: an overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Passmore, C., Coleman, E., Horton, J., & Parker, H. (2013). Making sense of natural selection. The Science Teacher, 80(6), 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Passmore, C., Gouvea, J., & Giere, R. N. (2014). Models in science and in learning science: focusing scientific practice on sense-making. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy, and science teaching (pp. 1171–1202). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools., 39(3), 185–204.Google Scholar
  53. Passmore, C., Stewart, J., & Cartier, J. (2009). Model-based inquiry and school science: creating connections. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Passmore, C., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modeling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535–1554.Google Scholar
  55. Petraglia, J. (1995). Spinning like a kite: a closer look at the pseudotransactional function of writing. Journal of Advanced Composition, 15(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
  56. Pierson, A., Clark, D., & Sherad, M. (2017). Learning progressions in context: tensions and insights from a semester-long middle school modeling curriculum. Science Education, 101(6), 1061–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reiser, B. J., Michaels, S., Moon, J., Bell, T., Dyer, E., Edwards, K. D., et al. (2017). Scaling up three-dimensional science learning through teacher-led study groups across a state. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 280–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roseman, J. E., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & Koppal, M. (2017). Designing for the Next Generation Science Standards: Educative curricular materials and measures of teacher knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 111–141.Google Scholar
  59. Rudolph, J. L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: school science in a historical context. Science Education, 87(1):CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: the origins of “the scientific method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Russ, R. S. (2018). Characterizing teacher attention to student thinking: a role for epistemological messages. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 94–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., et al. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Cognition and instruction. Cognition and Instruction., 23(2), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sikorski, T. R., & Hammer, D. (2017). Looking for coherence in science curriculum. Science Education, 101(6), 929–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Watson, J., & Crick, F. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature, 171(4356), 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. E., & Macrander, C. A. (2015). Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 396–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation: the impact of preservice instruction on teachers’ understandings of model-based inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Windschitl, M., & Stroupe, D. (2017). The three-story challenge: implications of the Next Generation Science Standards for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Ambitious science teaching. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  71. Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T., & Schwarz, C. V. (2015). Exploring the effect of embedded scaffolding within curricular tasks on third-grade students’ model-based explanations about hydrologic cycling. Science & Education, 24(7–8), 957–981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Teacher Education & Human DevelopmentUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Education and BiologyTufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  3. 3.School of EducationUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations