Technology-Enhanced, Modeling-Based Instruction (TMBI) in Science Education

  • Ji Shen
  • Jing Lei
  • Hsin-Yi Chang
  • Bahadir Namdar


In this chapter, we review recent research and development in technology-enhanced, modeling-based instruction (TMBI) in science education. We describe the cognitive, social, and curriculum-design aspects of science learning promoted in these environments. We emphasize the continuum of qualitative to quantitative modeling, the computational mind, and the system thinking that are critical for scientific modeling. We illustrate typical collaborative learning in TMBI science education settings. We highlight scaffolding strategies relevant to TMBI in science curricula.


Model Model-based reasoning Computational modeling System thinking 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under award number DRL-1019866. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Adams, W. K., Paulson, A., & Wieman, C. E. (2009). What levels of guidance promote engaged exploration with interactive simulations? PERC Proceedings. Retrieved August 23, 2011, from
  2. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birchfield, D., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2009). Earth science learning in SMALLab: A design experiment for mixed reality. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. *Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bravo, C., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (2009). Using Co-Lab to build system dynamics models: Students’ actions and on-line tutorial advice. Computers in Education, 53(2), 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bredeweg, B., & Forbus, K. (2003). Qualitative modeling in education. AI Magazine, 24(4), 35–46.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, H.-Y., & Linn, M. C. (in press). Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  9. *Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94, 73–94.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the ­process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. *Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041–1053.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Forbus, K. D. (1984). Qualitative process theory. Artificial Intelligence, 24(1–3), 85–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frederiksen, J. R., White, B. Y., & Gutwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 806–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. *Gilbert, J. K. (1993). Models & modeling in science education. Hatfield, UK: The Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  18. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (1998). Learning science through models and modeling. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Part 1 (pp. 53–66). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert, J., Pietrocola, M., Zylbersztajn, A., & Franco, C. (2000). Science education: Notions of reality, theory and models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Buolter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 19–40). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gobert, J. D., & Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students’ epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hart, C. (2008). Models in physics, models for physics learning, and why the distinction may matter in the case of electric circuits. Research in Science Education, 38(5), 529–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55, 440–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ioannidou, A., Repenning, A., Webb, D., Keyser, D., Luhn, L., & Daetwyler, C. (2010). Mr. Vetro: A collective simulation for teaching health science. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: the search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in River City, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ketelhut, D. J., & Dede, C. (2006). Assessing inquiry learning. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Ketelhut, D. J., Dede, C., Clarke, J., & Nelson, B. (2006). A multi-user virtual environment for building higher order inquiry skills in science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B., Dede, C., & Clarke, J. (2006). Inquiry learning in multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  31. Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91, 877–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Komis, V., Ergazaki, M., & Zogza, V. (2007). Comparing computer-supported dynamic modeling and “paper & pencil” concept mapping technique in students’ collaborative activity. Computers in Education, 49(4), 991–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kozma, R. B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 105–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krange, I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). What does it mean? Students’ procedural and conceptual problem solving in a CSCL environment designed within the field of science education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. *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. 371–388). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Inventing a “mid-level” to make ends meet: Reasoning through the levels of complexity. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009a). Students’ learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1) Curriculum: Navigating the complexities of the particulate world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009b). Crossing levels and representations: The Connected Chemistry (CC1) Curriculum. Educational Technology, 18(3), 224–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li, S. C., Law, N., & Lui, K. F. A. (2006). Cognitive perturbation through dynamic modeling: A pedagogical approach to conceptual change in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(6), 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. *Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.Google Scholar
  43. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B.-S. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. *Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049–1050.Google Scholar
  47. Liu, X. (2006). Effects of combined hands-on laboratory and computer modeling on student learning of gas laws: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Collaborative versus individual use of regulative software scaffolds during scientific inquiry learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 745–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Metcalf, S. J., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  54. *National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  55. Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies for developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology, 45(1), 21–27.Google Scholar
  56. Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Papaevripidou, M., Constantinou, C. P., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Modeling complex marine ecosystems: An investigation of two teaching approaches with fifth graders. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. *Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123.Google Scholar
  60. Parnafes, O. (2007). What does fast mean? Understanding the physical world through representations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 415–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modelling. Review of Research in Education, 25, 1–37.Google Scholar
  63. Penner, D. E., Gilles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., et al. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Podolefsky, N. S., Perkins, K. K., & Adams, W. K. (2010). Factors promoting engaged exploration with computer simulations. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 6, 020117-1-11.Google Scholar
  66. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. *Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.Google Scholar
  68. Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2005, April). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of models. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  69. 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 learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. (2005). Meta-modeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sell, K. S., Herbert, B. E., Stuessy, C. L., & Schielack, J. (2006). Supporting student conceptual model development of complex Earth systems through the use of multiple representations and inquiry. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(3), 396–407.Google Scholar
  72. Shen, J. (2010). Nurturing students’ critical knowledge using technology-enhanced scaffolding strategies in science education: A conceptual framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. *Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (2007). From conceptual change to constructive modeling: A case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy. Science Education, 91(6), 948–966.Google Scholar
  74. Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (2010). Justifying alternative models in learning the solar system: A case study on K-8 science teachers’ understanding of frames of reference. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shen, J., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Connecting scientific explanations and everyday observations: A technology enhanced curriculum on modeling static electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1597–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Simpson, G., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2006). Exploring the mathematics of motion through construction and collaboration. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 114–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., & van HoutWolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). The relation between students’ epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modelling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1205–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Inquiry and the internet in the science classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  79. Songer, N. B. (2007). Digital resources versus cognitive tools: A discussion of learning science with technology. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  80. Stern, L., Barnea, N., & Shauli, S. (2008). The effect of a computerized simulation on middle school students’ understanding of the kinetic molecular theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Tobin, K. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.Google Scholar
  83. Tomasi, J. (1988). Models and modeling in theoretical chemistry. Journal of Molecular Structure (THEOCHEM), 179, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. White, B. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wieman, C., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. *Wieman, C., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322, 682–683.Google Scholar
  87. Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2009). An introduction to agent-based ­modeling: Modeling natural, social and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  88. 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
  89. *Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
  90. 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
  91. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wu, H.-K. (2010). Modeling a complex system: Using novice-expert analysis for developing an effective technology-enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Xie, C. (2010). Computational experiments for science and engineering education. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from Scholar
  95. Xie, Q., & Tinker, R. (2006). Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. *Xie, C., Tinker, R., Tinker, B., Pallant, A., Damelin, D., & Berenfeld, B. (2011). Computational experiments for science education. Science, 332(6037), 1516–1517.Google Scholar
  97. Zhang, B., Liu, X., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Expert models and modeling processes associated with computer-modeling tool. Science Education, 90(4), 579–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ji Shen
    • 1
  • Jing Lei
    • 2
  • Hsin-Yi Chang
    • 3
  • Bahadir Namdar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Science Education, College of EducationThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Instructional Design, Development and EvaluationSchool of Education, Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations