Tensions Between Learning Models and Engaging in Modeling
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.
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Grant, P. R. (1999). Ecology and evolution of Darwin’s finches. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.Google Scholar
- Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
- Manz, E. (2015). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research (Vol. 85).Google Scholar
- Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- 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
- Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools., 39(3), 185–204.Google Scholar
- Passmore, C., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modeling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535–1554.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Ambitious science teaching. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
- 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