Opportunities to generate model-based explanations are crucial for elementary students, yet are rarely foregrounded in elementary science learning environments despite evidence that early learners can reason from models when provided with scaffolding. We used a quasi-experimental research design to investigate the comparative impact of a scaffold test condition consisting of embedded physical scaffolds within a curricular modeling task on third-grade (age 8–9) students’ formulation of model-based explanations for the water cycle. This condition was contrasted to the control condition where third-grade students used a curricular modeling task with no embedded physical scaffolds. Students from each condition (n scaffold = 60; n unscaffold = 56) generated models of the water cycle before and after completion of a 10-week water unit. Results from quantitative analyses suggest that students in the scaffolded condition represented and linked more subsurface water process sequences with surface water process sequences than did students in the unscaffolded condition. However, results of qualitative analyses indicate that students in the scaffolded condition were less likely to build upon these process sequences to generate model-based explanations and experienced difficulties understanding their models as abstracted representations rather than recreations of real-world phenomena. We conclude that embedded curricular scaffolds may support students to consider non-observable components of the water cycle but, alone, may be insufficient for generation of model-based explanations about subsurface water movement.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2013). A ‘semantic’ view of scientific models for science education. Science & Education, 22(7), 1593–1611.
Baek, H., Schwarz, C., Chen, J., Hokayem, H., & Zhan, L. (2011). Engaging elementary students in scientific modeling: The MoDeLS fifth-grade approach and findings. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling (pp. 195–218). Netherlands: Springer.
Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 36, 421–441.
Berland, L., Schwarz, C., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A., & Reiser, B. (2015). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Besson, U. (2010). Calculating and understanding: Formal models and causal explanations in science, common reasoning and physics teaching. Science & Education, 19(3), 225–257.
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669.
Covitt, B. A., Gunckel, K. L., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Students’ developing understanding of water in environmental systems. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 37–51.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Develaki, M. (2007). The model-based view of scientific theories and the structuring of school science programmes. Science & Education, 16(7–8), 725–749.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 5–12.
Forbes, C. T., Zangori, L., & Schwartz, C. (2015). Empirical validation of integrated learning performances for hydrologic phenomena: 3rd-grade students’ model-driven explanation-construction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
FOSS. (2005). Teacher guide: Water. Berkeley, CA: Delta Education Inc.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. New York, NY: Pearson Education Inc.
Gilbert, J., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (2000). Explanations with models in science education. In J. Gilber & C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 193–208). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69(S3), S342–S353.
Gunckel, K. L., Covitt, B. A., Salinas, I., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for water in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 843–868.
Halloun, I. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16(7–8), 653–697.
Henriques, L. (2002). Children’s ideas about weather: A review of the literature. School Science and Mathematics, 102(5), 202–215.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevdeo, R. (2009). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61.
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., & Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. New York, NY: Duxbury Press.
Kyriakopoulou, N., & Vosniadou, S. (2014). Using theory of mind to promote conceptual change in science. Science & Education, 23(7), 1447–1462.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–387). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.
Manz, E. (2012). Understanding the codevelopment of modeling practice and ecological knowledge. Science Education, 96(6), 1071–1105.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.
Salmon, W. (1998). Causality and explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., et al. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learner. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.
Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.
Scientific Practices Research Group. (n.d.). Epistemic considerations rubrics. (Unpublished documents). Evanston IL: Northwestern University.
Sensevy, G., Tiberghien, A., Santini, J., Laubé, S., & Griggs, P. (2008). An epistemological approach to modeling: Cases studies and implications for science teaching. Science Education, 92(3), 424–446.
Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387–421.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T., & Schwarz, C. (2014). Investigating the effect of curricular scaffolds on 3rd-grade students’ model-based explanations for hydrologic cycling. 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: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014 (Vol. 2, pp. 942–946). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (DRL-1443223 and DRL-1020316). We appreciate the interest and cooperation of Tina Vo, Christopher Soldat, Julie Foltz, Sheila Barron, and the students and teachers who made this research possible.
About this article
Cite this article
Zangori, L., Forbes, C.T. & Schwarz, C.V. Exploring the Effect of Embedded Scaffolding Within Curricular Tasks on Third-Grade Students’ Model-Based Explanations about Hydrologic Cycling. Sci & Educ 24, 957–981 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9771-9
- Modeling Task
- Elementary Student
- Water Cycle
- Epistemic Feature
- Water Cycle Process