Abstract
The present chapter focuses on the use of a submicroscopic model as an investigative tool by students in their study of electrostatic polarization. The aim of the research was to investigate whether students are able to use the model in order to predict electrical interactions between charged and uncharged objects, whether students gain awareness of the use of the model as an investigative tool, and which features of the model helped them to predict the phenomenon. Simulated models showed multiple representations of the structural and behavioral aspects of atoms. The teaching unit was used with one group of lower secondary students (ages 12–15) and one group of student teachers. In the teaching unit, students, initially, were asked to predict the phenomenon, and then they were introduced to the model, they were asked to predict again the same phenomenon, and afterward they observed the real experiment and participated in a metacognitive phase in order to reflect on the way they have worked with the model. Data were obtained from the analysis of written answers and related transcribed group interviews conducted during the course of instruction. Results showed that both university and lower secondary school students cited and identified different elements of the model that helped them to predict the electrostatic polarization phenomena under study. Both groups seem to have developed an understanding of aspects of the function of submicroscopic models as investigative tool.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aiello-Nicosia, L. M., & Sperandeo-Mineo, M. R. (2000). Educational reconstruction of physics content to be taught and of pre-service teacher training: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 22(10), 1085–1097.
Barbas, A., & Psillos, D. (2003). Evolution of students’ reasoning about microscopic processes in electrostatics under the influence of interactive simulations. In D. Psillos (Ed.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 243–254). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1989). Research methods in education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379–1401.
Furio, C., Guisasola, J., & Almudi, M. J. (2004). Elementary electrostatic phenomena: Historical hindrances and students’ difficulties. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 4(3), 291–313.
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. (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), 799–822.
Harrington, R. (1999). Discovering the reasoning behind the words: An example from electrostatics. American Journal of Physics, 67(7), 58–59.
Hestenes, D. (1997). Modeling methodology for physics teachers. In E. F. Redish & J. S. Rigden (Eds.), Proceedings of international conference on undergraduate physics education (pp. 935–957). New York: The American Institute of Physics.
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1369–1386.
Justi, S. R., & Van Driel, J. H. (2005). The development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modelling: Promoting, characterizing and understanding the process. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 549–573.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 101–159). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Mellar, H., & Bliss, J. (1994). Introduction: Modelling and education. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn, & C. Tompsett (Eds.), Learning with artificial worlds: Computer based modelling in the curriculum (pp. 1–7). London: Falmer Press.
Otero, V., Johnson, A., & Goldberg, F. (1999). How does the computer facilitate the development of physics knowledge among prospective elementary teachers? Journal of Teacher Education, 181(2), 57–89.
Petridou, Ε., Psillos, D., Hatzikraniotis, E., & Viiri, I. (2009a). Design and development of a microscopic model in polarization. Physics Education, 44, 589–598.
Petridou, E., Psillos, D., Hatzikraniotis, E., & Viiri, J. (2009b, August–September). Teaching aspects of models to pre-service primary teachers: The case of polarization. Paper presented at 7th European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Conference, Istanbul.
Saari, H., & Viiri, J. (2003). An investigative-based teaching sequence for teaching the concept of modelling to seventh-grade students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1333–1352.
Schwarz, V. C., & White, Y. B. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.
Sins, H. M. P., Savelsbergh, R. E., & van Joolingen, R. W. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695–1721.
Stylianidou, F., Boohan, R., & Ogborn, J. (2003). Computer modelling and simulation in science lessons: Using research into teachers’ transformations to inform training. In D. Psillos et al. (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge-based society (pp. 361–369). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Treagust, F. D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, L. T. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 357–368.
Treagust, F. D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, L. T. (2004). Students’ understanding of the descriptive and predictive nature of teaching models in organic chemistry. Research in Science Education, 34, 1–20.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. M. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. London: Sage.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation: The impact of preservice instruction on teachers’ understandings of model-based inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783–835.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Petridou, E., Psillos, D., Hatzikraniotis, E., Kallery, M. (2013). A Study on the Exploratory Use of Microscopic Models as Investigative Tools: The Case of Electrostatic Polarization. In: Tsaparlis, G., Sevian, H. (eds) Concepts of Matter in Science Education. Innovations in Science Education and Technology, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5914-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5914-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5913-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5914-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)