Advertisement

Modeling as Inquiry Activity in School Science: What’s the Point?

  • William Barowy
  • Nancy Roberts
Part of the Modeling Dynamic Systems book series (MDS)

Abstract

“What’s the point?” Asked a middle-school student who was given the task of exploring modeling software with her partner in a clinical interview. Having no prior exposure to the computer model, and having been given no other directions than what they needed to run a simulation, she and her partner questioned the authenticity of the moment. They had just met the interviewers, and a camcorder was located behind them, pointed over their shoulders at the computer screen. In the process of designing the interview to explore student inquiry with computer models in the least invasive way, we as researchers created a context that made no sense to the students.

Keywords

Science Education Conceptual Change Causal Model Rational Evaluation Classroom Experiment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061. 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barowy, W., & Laserna, C. 1997. The role of the Internet in the adoption of computer modeling as legitimate high school science. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1): 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, A. 1992. Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. 1989. An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cazden, C. 1988. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. Clement, J. 1982. Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clement, J. 1989. Learning via model construction and criticism. In Glover, G., Ronning, R., & Reynolds, C. (eds.), Handbook of creativity: Assessment, theory and research. NewYork: Plenum Press, pp. 341–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clement, J., Brown, D.E., & Zietsman, A. 1989. Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding “anchoring conceptions” for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11(Special Issue), 554–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole, M. 1997. Private communication.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, M. 1996. Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cole, M., & Scribner, S. 1974. Culture and thought: A psychological introduction. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, A. 1992. Toward a design science of education. In Scanlon, E., & O’Shea, T. (eds.), New directions in educational technology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. 1989. Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading writing and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. diSessa, A. 1983. Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In Gentner, D., and Stevens, A. (eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
  15. Driver, R. 1987. Approaches to teaching plant nutrition. Children’s Learning in Science Project, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  16. Driver, R. 1989. Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driver, R., and Bell, B. 1986. Students’ thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67(240), 443–456.Google Scholar
  18. Duffy, M., and Barowy, W. 1985. Effects of constructivist and computer-facilitated strategies on achievement in heterogeneous secondary biology. NARST 1995 Annual Meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  19. Glaser, B.G., and Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. 1991. Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawkins, J., & Collins, A. (1999). Design experiments: Evaluating the role of technology in supporting school change. In Hawkins, J., & Collins, A. (eds.), Design experiments: Using technology to restructure schools. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hestenes, D. 1992. Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics 60(8), 732-748. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horwitz, P., & Barowy, W. 1994. Designing and using open-ended software to promote conceptual change. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3 (3), 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. 1996. Making dynamic modeling accessible to pre-college science students. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lakatos, I. 1978. The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LCHC. 1989. Kids and,computers: A positive vision of the future. Harvard Educational Review, 59(1), 50–86.Google Scholar
  27. Lemke, J. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Leont’ev, A. N. 1975. The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology XIII(2), 4-33. (Translation fromVoprosy filosofii, 1972, no. 9, 95-108.) Google Scholar
  29. Mandinach, E., & Thorpe, M. 1988. The systems thinking and curriculum innovation project: Technical report. Cambridge, MA: Educational Technology Center, Harvard Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
  30. McArthur, D., & Lewis, M. 1991. Overview of object-oriented microworlds for learning mathematics through inquiry. A RAND Note. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  31. Mehan, H. 1979. Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council. 1985. Models for biomedical research: A new perspective. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council. 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. Newman, D., Morrison, D., & Torzs, F. 1993. The conflict between teaching and scientific sense-making: The case of a curriculum on seasonal change. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Papert, S. 1990. Introduction to constructionist learning: A fifth anniversary collection of papers, ed. I. Harel Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Media Laboratory. Google Scholar
  36. Popper, K. R. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Resnick, M. 1994. Turtles termites and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds, Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  38. Richards, J., Barowy, W., & Levin, D. 1992. Computer simulations in the science classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Riley, D. 1990. Learning about systems by making models. Computers in Education 15(1-3) 255-263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roschelle, J. 1992. Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change.The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(3),235–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roberts, N. 1978. Teaching dynamic feedback thinking: An elementary view.Management Science 24(8) 836-843. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roberts, N., Blakeslee, G., & Barowy, W. 1996. The dynamics of learning in a computer simulation environment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saferstein, B., & Souviney, R. 1996. Secondary science teachers and the Internet: Community of Explorers project. Submitted to The Journal of Computing and Teacher Education. Google Scholar
  44. Sarason, S. B. 1972. The creation of settings and the future societies. London: JosseyBass.Google Scholar
  45. Samson, S. B. 1996. Revisiting “The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change.” New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sarason, S. B. 1997. Revisiting the creation of settings. Mind, culture and activity, 4(3), 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saxe, G. B. 1991. Culture and cognitive development: Studies in mathematical understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L.E., & Raghavan, K. 1991. Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schwartz, D. 1993. The construction and anological transfer of symbolic visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1309–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  51. Sutton, C. 1993. Figuring out a scientific understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1215–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological functions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Wells, G. 1996. Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(2), 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wertsch, J. 1991. Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. White, B. 1993. ThinkerTools: Conceptual change and science education. Cognition and Instruction 10, 1 - 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White, B., and Horwitz, P. 1988. Computer microworlds and conceptual change: A new approach to science education. In Ramsden, R. (ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Barowy
  • Nancy Roberts

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations