Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Navigating Tensions Between Conceptual and Metaconceptual Goals in the Use of Models

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science education involves learning about phenomena at three levels: concrete (facts and generalizations), conceptual (concepts and theories), and metaconceptual (epistemology) (Snir et al. in J Sci Educ Technol 2(2):373–388, 1993). Models are key components in science, can help build conceptual understanding, and may also build metaconceptual understanding. Technology can transform teaching and learning by turning models into interactive simulations that learners can investigate. This paper identifies four characteristics of models and simulations that support conceptual learning but misconstrue models and science at a metaconceptual level. Ahistorical models combine the characteristics of several historical models; they conveniently compile ideas but misrepresent the history of science (Gilbert in Int J Sci Math Educ 2(2):115–130, 2004). Teleological models explain behavior in terms of a final cause; they can lead to useful heuristics but imply purpose in processes driven by chance and probability (Talanquer in Int J Sci Educ 29(7):853–870, 2007). Epistemological overreach occurs when models or simulations imply greater certainty and knowledge about phenomena than warranted; conceptualizing nature as being well known (e.g., having a mathematical structure) poses the danger of conflating model and reality or data and theory. Finally, models are inevitably ontologically impoverished. Real-world deviations and many variables are left out of models, as models’ role is to simplify. Models and simulations also lose much of the sensory data present in phenomena. Teachers, designers, and professional development designers and facilitators must thus navigate the tension between conceptual and metaconceptual learning when using models and simulations. For each characteristic, examples are provided, along with recommendations for instruction and design. Prompts for explicit reflective activities around models are provided for each characteristic

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some authors use the term “metaconceptual” to refer to a person’s metacognitive reflection about their own conceptual understanding (e.g., Flavell 1986). This paper instead uses metaconceptual to refer to nature of science, epistemic understanding, i.e., about the collective knowledge of scientists rather than an individual’s knowledge.

  2. For technical guidelines, see http://www.compadre.org/physlets/.

References

  • Akerson VL, Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman NG (2000) Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 37(4):295–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson LW, Krathwohl D (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardac D, Akaygun S (2004) Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. J Res Sci Teach 41(4):317–337. doi:10.1002/tea.20005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacon F (2010) Novum Organum/The New Organon: the true directions concerning the interpretation of nature. MobileReference (original work published 1620)

  • Barbera J, Dubson M, Koch L, LeMaster R, Perkins K, Wieman C (2012) Gas properties. PhET interactive simulations. University of Colorado. http://phet.colorado.edu. http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/gas-properties. Retrieved 19 Sept 2013

  • Benson T (2004) Gas lab. NASA Educational Programs Office. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Animation/frglab2.html

  • Blauch DN (2009) Virtual chemistry experiments. Kinetic molecular theory: pressure–volume relation. http://www.chm.davidson.edu/ChemistryApplets/KineticMolecularTheory/index.html

  • Carey S, Smith C (1993) On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educ Psychol 28(3):235–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang H-Y, Linn MC (2013) Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. J Res Sci Teach 50(7):858–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi MTH, Ceci SJ (1987) Content knowledge: its role, representation and restructuring in memory development. In: Reese HW (ed) Advances in child development and behavior, vol 20. Academic Press, New York, pp 91–142

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn CA, Brewer WF (1993) The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Rev Educ Res 63(1):1–49. doi:10.3102/00346543063001001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark D, Nelson B, Sengupta P, D’Angelo C (2009) Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations: genres, examples, and evidence. In: Learning science: computer games, simulations, and education workshop sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy of Sciences Washington, DC

  • De Berg KC (2006) The status of constructivism in chemical education research and its relationship to the teaching and learning of the concept of idealization in chemistry. Found Chem 8(2):153–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong T, Linn MC, Zacharia ZC (2013) Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 340(6130):305–308. doi:10.1126/science.1230579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado C (2013) Nature of science considerations in the design and use of simulations for chemistry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA

  • Delgado C, Krajcik JS (2010) Technology supports for science learning. In: Baker E, Peterson P, McGraw B (eds) The international encyclopedia of education, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 197–203

  • Duit R, Treagust DF (2003) Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. Int J Sci Educ 25(6):671–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran S, Duschl RA (2004) Interdisciplinary characterizations of models and the nature of chemical knowledge in the classroom. Stud Sci Educ 40(1):105–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson T (2008) Big time science. http://www.bigtimescience.com/nos808/index.html. Retrieved 19 Sept 2013

  • Finkelstein ND, Adams WK, Keller CJ, Kohl PB, Perkins KK, Podolefsky NS et al (2005) When learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 1(1):010103. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell JH (1986) The development of children’s knowledge about the appearance–reality distinction. Am Psychol 41(4):418–425. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.4.418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frailich M, Kesner M, Hofstein A (2009) Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. J Res Sci Teach 46(3):289–310. doi:10.1002/tea.20278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere RN (2006) Understanding scientific reasoning. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert JK (2004) Models and modelling: routes to more authentic science education. Int J Sci Math Educ 2(2):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert JK, Boulter CJ (1998) Learning science through models and modeling. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 53–66

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert JD, O’Dwyer L, Horwitz P, Buckley BC, Levy ST, Wilensky U (2011) Examining the relationship between students’ understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Int J Sci Educ 33(5):653–684. doi:10.1080/09500691003720671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayce CJ (1997) Chemical kinetics simulation. University of California Irvine, CA. http://www.chem.uci.edu/undergrad/applets/

  • Grim P, Rosenberger R, Rosenfeld A, Anderson B, Eason RE (2013) How simulations fail. Synthese 190(12):2367–2390. doi:10.1007/s11229-011-9976-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosslight L, Unger C, Jay E, Smith CL (1991) Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. J Res Sci Teach 28(9):799–822. doi:10.1002/tea.3660280907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison AG, De Jong O (2005) Exploring the use of multiple analogical models when teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. J Res Sci Teach 42(10):1135–1159. doi:10.1002/tea.20090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger M (2009) The question concerning technology. In: Hanks C (ed) Technology and values: essential readings. Wiley, Chichester, pp 99–113 (original work published 1954)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson D (1998) Teaching and learning science: towards a personalized approach. Open University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson D (2008) Towards scientific literacy: a teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaakkola T, Nurmi S, Veermans K (2011) A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. J Res Sci Teach 48(1):71–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson MJ, Wilensky U (2006) Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J Learn Sci 15(1):11–34. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson MJ, Kapur M, So H-J, Lee J (2011) The ontologies of complexity and learning about complex systems. Instr Sci 39(5):763–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi R, Gilbert JK (1999) History and philosophy of science through models: the case of chemical kinetics. Sci Educ 8(3):287–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi R, Gilbert JK (2000) History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of “the atom”. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):993–1009. doi:10.1080/095006900416875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi R, Gilbert JK (2002a) Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. Int J Sci Educ 24(12):1273–1292. doi:10.1080/09500690210163198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi R, Gilbert JK (2002b) Philosophy of chemistry in university chemical education: the case of models and modeling. Found Chem 4(3):213–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan S (2011) New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. J Sci Educ Technol 20(3):215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kind V, Taber K (2005) Science: teaching school subjects 11–19. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma RB, Chin E, Russell JW, Marx N (2000) The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. J Learn Sci 9(2):105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman NG (2007) Nature of science: past, present, and future. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Routledge, London, pp 831–879

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad G, Rotbain Y, Stavy R (2008) Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. J Res Sci Teach 45(3):273–292. doi:10.1002/tea.20222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall JA, Young ES (2006) Preservice teachers’ theory development in physical and simulated environments. J Res Sci Teach 43(9):907–937. doi:10.1002/tea.20124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalchik V, Rosenquist A, Kozma RB, Kreikemeier P, Schank P (2008) Representational resources for constructing shared understandings in the high school chemistry classroom. In: Gilbert JK, Reiner M, Nakhleh M (eds) Visualization: theory and practice in science education. Springer, New York, pp 233–282

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MSC Software (2000) Interactive physics. MSC Software, San Mateo

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh M, Postek B (2008) Learning chemistry using multiple external representations. In: Gilbert J, Reiner M, Nakhleh M (eds) Visualization: theory and practice in science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 209–231

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996) National Science Education Standards: observe, interact, change, learn. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States (2013) Next Generation Science Standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Plass JL, Homer BD, Hayward EO (2009) Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. J Comput High Educ 21(1):31–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass JL, Milne C, Homer BD, Schwartz RN, Hayward EO, Jordan T et al (2012) Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning. J Res Sci Teach 49(3):394–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plesch PH (1999) On the distinctness of chemistry. Found Chem 1(1):6–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth W-M (1995) Affordances of computers in teacher-student interactions: the case of Interactive Physics. J Res Sci Teach 32:329–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth W-M, Bowen GM (1999) Of cannibals, missionaries, and converts: graphing competencies from grade 8 to professional science inside (classrooms) and outside (field/laboratory). Sci Technol Hum Values 24(2):179–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutten N, van Joolingen WR, van der Veen JT (2012) The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Comput Educ 58(1):136–153. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scalise K, Timms M, Moorjani A, Clark L, Holtermann K, Irvin PS (2011) Student learning in science simulations: design features that promote learning gains. J Res Sci Teach 48(9):1050–1078. doi:10.1002/tea.20437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunn CD, Anderson JR (1999) The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cogn Sci 23(3):337–370. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2303_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz CV, White BY (2005) Metamodeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cogn Instr 23(2):165–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz CV, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Kenyon L, Achér A, Fortus D et al (2009) Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):632–654. doi:10.1002/tea.20311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smetana LK, Bell RL (2012) Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ 34(9):1337–1370. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.605182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith CL, Wiser M, Anderson CW, Krajcik JS (2006) Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: a proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory Focus article. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect 14:1–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snir J, Smith CL, Grosslight L (1993) Conceptually enhanced simulations: a computer tool for science teaching. J Sci Educ Technol 2(2):373–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens SY, Sutherland L, Krajcik JS (2009) The big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering: a guidebook for secondary teachers. NSTA Press, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber KS (2008) Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Sci Educ 17(2–3):179–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talanquer V (2007) Explanations and teleology in chemistry education. Int J Sci Educ 29(7):853–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasker R, Dalton R (2008) Visualizing the molecular world—design, evaluation, and use of animations. In: Gilbert J, Reiner M, Nakhleh M (eds) Visualization: theory and practice in science education, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 103–131

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust DF, Chittleborough G, Mamiala TL (2002) Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. Int J Sci Educ 24(4):357–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou S (1994) Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learn Instr 4(1):45–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg M, Needham P, Robin H (2011) Philosophy of chemistry. In Zalta EN (ed) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/chemistry/

  • White BY, Frederiksen JR (2000) Metacognitive facilitation: an approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In: Minstrell J, van Zee E (eds.) Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp. 331–370

  • Wiebe EN, Minogue J, Gail Jones M, Cowley J, Krebs D (2009) Haptic feedback and students’ learning about levers: unraveling the effect of simulated touch. Comput Educ 53(3):667–676. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U (1999) NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

  • Wilensky U (2002) NetLogo GasLab moving piston model. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/GasLabMovingPiston. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

  • Wilensky U, Resnick M (1999) Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. J Sci Educ Technol 8(1):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie C (2011, Fall). Learning chemistry through inquiry: the Molecular Workbench to the rescue. Committee on Computers in Chemical Education.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my appreciation to Jay Lemke and anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Cesar Delgado

Authors
  1. Cesar Delgado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cesar Delgado.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delgado, C. Navigating Tensions Between Conceptual and Metaconceptual Goals in the Use of Models. J Sci Educ Technol 24, 132–147 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9495-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9495-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation