Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 11–33 | Cite as

What’s the Technology For? Teacher Attention and Pedagogical Goals in a Modeling-Focused Professional Development Workshop

  • Michelle Hoda Wilkerson
  • Chelsea Andrews
  • Yara Shaban
  • Vasiliki Laina
  • Brian E. Gravel
Article

Abstract

This paper explores the role that technology can play in engaging pre-service teachers with the iterative, “messy” nature of model-based inquiry. Over the course of 5 weeks, 11 pre-service teachers worked in groups to construct models of diffusion using a computational animation and simulation toolkit, and designed lesson plans for the toolkit. Content analyses of group discussions and lesson plans document attention to content, representation, revision, and evaluation as interwoven aspects of modeling over the course of the workshop. When animating, only content and representation were heavily represented in group discussions. When simulating, all four aspects were represented to different extents across groups. Those differences corresponded with different planned uses for the technology during lessons: to teach modeling, to engage learners with one another’s ideas, or to reveal student ideas. We identify specific ways in which technology served an important role in eliciting teachers’ knowledge and goals related to scientific modeling in the classroom.

Keywords

Computational modeling Simulation Professional development Scientific modeling Teachers Model-based reasoning 

References

  1. Campbell, T., Longhurst, M. L., Wang, S.-K., Hsu, H.-Y., & Coster, D. C. (2014). Technologies and reform-based science instruction: The examination of a professional development model focused on supporting science teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 562–579. doi:10.1007/s10956-015-9548-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Danusso, L., Testa, I., & Vicentini, M. (2010). Improving prospective teachers’ knowledge about scientific models and modelling: Design and evaluation of a teacher education intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 871–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (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
  7. Fishman, B. J. (2014). Designing usable interventions: Bringing student perspectives to the table. Instructional Science, 42(1), 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fouse, A., Weibel, N., Hutchns, E., & Hollan, J. D. (2011). Chronoviz: A system for supporting navigation of time-coded data. In CHI EA '11: CHI 11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 299–304). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  9. Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gouvea, J., Jamshidi, A., & Passmore, C. (2014). Model-based reasoning: A framework for coordinating authentic scientific practice with science learning. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, T. Lee, & L. D’Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2014 (Vol. 2, pp. 705–712). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  11. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Johnson, P. (1998). Children’s understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, part 1: Boiling water and the particle theory. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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(4), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 101–105. Google Scholar
  18. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: Achieve Inc.Google Scholar
  22. OECD. (2013). Draft PISA 2015 science framework. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm
  23. 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
  24. Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sherin, B. L., Krakowski, M., & Lee, V. R. (2012). Some assembly required: How scientific explanations are constructed during clinical interviews. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 166–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2008). The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students’ dynamic modeling processes: Analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. TechSmith. (2010). Camtasia [Computer Software]. http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.html
  32. Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. VanLehn, K. (2013). Model construction as a learning activity: A design space and review. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 371–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White, B. Y., Collins, A., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2011). The nature of scientific meta-knowledge. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling (pp. 41–76). Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0449-7_3
  36. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. E., & Macrander, C. A. (2013). SiMSAM: An integrated toolkit to bridge student, scientific, and mathematical ideas using computational media. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2013) (Vol. 2, pp. 379–381). Madison, WI: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  38. Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. E., & Macrander, C. A. (2015). Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and simulations of molecular diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 204–251. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9497-5 Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Wright, C. G. (2011). “Seeing as sound travels everywhere:” African American boys learning to ‘see’ sound transmission through the analysis of invented representations. Journal of African American Males in Education, 2(1), 81–97.Google Scholar
  41. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of California-BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Education, School of Arts and SciencesTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations