Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

‘Models of’ versus ‘Models for’

Toward an Agent-Based Conception of Modeling in the Science Classroom

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The inclusion of the practice of “developing and using models” in the Framework for K-12 Science Education and in the Next Generation Science Standards provides an opportunity for educators to examine the role this practice plays in science and how it can be leveraged in a science classroom. Drawing on conceptions of models in the philosophy of science, we bring forward an agent-based account of models and discuss the implications of this view for enacting modeling in science classrooms. Models, according to this account, can only be understood with respect to the aims and intentions of a cognitive agent (models for), not solely in terms of how they represent phenomena in the world (models of). We present this contrast as a heuristic—models of versus models for—that can be used to help educators notice and interpret how models are positioned in standards, curriculum, and classrooms.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This letter, sent to Crick’s son Michael in 1953, was printed in the New York Times in 2013: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/26/science/crick-letter-on-dna-discovery.html?_r=0

  2. Our use of models of and models for is similar to but distinct from that of Keller (2000) who uses the terms to bridge theory and experiment in biology, referring to representations of gene pathways in molecular biology as both of, in the sense that they represent the mechanisms and for in that they generate new questions that motivate future experiments. Our use is also related to Adúriz-Bravo's (2013) use of model-for to refer to how models are used to instantiate theory and model-from, which like our “of” connotes representation from the world.

  3. See Giere’s (1988) chapter on “Theories of Science” for an elaboration of this history as well as Suppe (1972) for a more detailed history of the rise and fall of logical empiricism.

  4. The practice turn in philosophy of science is often marked by Kuhn’s (1970) seminal work.

  5. Downes 1992, Knuuttila (2011), and Suarez (2010) represent strong proponents of a “deflationary” account of models.

References

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2013). A “semantic” view of scientific models for science education. Science & Education, 22(7), 1593–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2003). When scientific models represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craver, C. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153(3), 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damşa, C. I.,  Kirschner, P. A.,  Andriessen, J. E. B.,  Erkens, G.,  & Sins,  P. H. M. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: an empirical study of an emergent construct. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19 (2), 143–186.

  • De Regt, H., & Dieks, D. (2005). A contextual approach to scientific understanding. Synthese, 144(1), 137–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes, S. (1992). The importance of models in theorizing: a deflationary semantic view. In PSA: proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association (Vol. 1992, pp. 142–153). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.

  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, S., & Ladyman, J. (1999). Reinflating the semantic approach. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 13(2), 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frigg, R. (2006). Scientific representation and the semantic view of theories. Theoria, 55, 49–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: a cognitive approach. University of Chicago Press.

  • Giere, R. N. (1994). The cognitive structure of scientific theories. Philosophy of Science, 61(2), 276–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science, 71, 742–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2006). The role of agency in distributed cognitive systems. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 710–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2010). An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese, 172(2), 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J., & Boulter, C. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 2: Whose voice? Whose ears? International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 187–203.

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2006). The strategy of model-based science. Biology and Philosophy, 21(5), 725–740.

  • Grandy, R. E., & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16(2), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16(7), 653–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., Russ, R., Mikeska, J., & Scherr, R. E. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students’ abilities. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 138–156). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izquierdo-Aymerich, M., & Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2003). Epistemological foundations of school science. Science & Education, 12, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (2000). Models of and models for: Theory and practice in contemporary biology. Philosophy of Science, 67(S1), S72–S86.

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press.

  • Knuuttila, T. (2005). Models, representation, and mediation. Philosophy of Science, 72(5), 1260–1271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila, T. (2011). Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42(2), 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins, R. (1968). Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Manz, E. (2012). Understanding the codevelopment of modeling practice and ecological knowledge. Science Education, 96(6), 1071–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. S., & Morrison, M. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In M. Morrison & M. S. Morgan (Eds.), Models as mediators. perspectives on natural and social Science (pp. 10–37). Cambridge University Press.

  • Morrison, Margaret. (2015). Reconstructing reality: models, mathematics, and simulations. Oxford University Press.

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

  • Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. Cognitive models of science, 15, 3–44.

  • Nicholson, A. J. & Bailey, V. A. (1935). The balance of animal populations. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 3, 551-598.

  • Nersessian, N. J. (1999). In L. Magnani, N. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in conceptual change (pp. 5–22). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning. In The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133–153). Cambridge University Press.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odenbaugh, J. (2005). Idealized, inaccurate but successful: a pragmatic approach to evaluating models in theoretical ecology. Biology and Philosophy, 20(2–3), 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, T. (1948). Experimental studies of interspecies competition. I. Competition between populations of flour beetles, Tribolium confusum Duval and Tribolium castaneum Herbst’. Ecological Monographs, 18, 265–307.

  • Passmore, C., Gouvea, J. S., & Giere, R. N. (2014). Models in science and in learning science: focusing scientific practice on sense-making. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Springer.

  • Schwab, J. J. (1960). Inquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The School Review, 68(2), 176–195. doi:10.2307/1083585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C., Passmore, C., & Reiser, B. (Eds.). (2017). Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices. Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikorski, T., Winters, V., & Hammer, D. (2009). Defining a learning progressions for scientific inquiry. In Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference. Iowa City, IA.

  • Simberloff, D. (1980). A succession of paradigms in ecology: Essentialism to materialism and probabilism. Synthese 43 (1), 3-39.

  • Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: how teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, M. (2002). An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 767–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suárez, M. (2003). Scientific representation: Against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17, 225–244.

  • Suarez, M. (2010). Scientific representation. Philosophy Compass, 5(1), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. (1972). What’s wrong with the received view of the structure of scientific theories? Philosophy of Science, 39(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. (1989). The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

  • Svoboda, J., & Passmore, C. (2013). The strategies of modeling in biology education. Science & Education, 22(1), 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teller, P. (2001). Twilight of the perfect model model. Erkenntnis, 55, 393–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teller, P. (2010). “Saving the phenomena” today. Philosophy of Science, 77(5), 815–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, B. (2010). Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Analysis 70 (3), 511–514.

  • van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the suggestions provided by the reviewers of this manuscript. This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grants DRL-0554652 and DRL-13489900 to the University of California at Davis, DRL-1020316. This work would not have been possible without the support and community created by the ISIM and MBER projects. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the friendship, mentoriship, and the many intellectual exchanges with Wendell Potter around the practice of modeling. We dedicate this to his memory.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Education and Biology, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA

    Julia Gouvea

  2. School of Education, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Cynthia Passmore

Authors
  1. Julia Gouvea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cynthia Passmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Gouvea.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gouvea, J., Passmore, C. ‘Models of’ versus ‘Models for’. Sci & Educ 26, 49–63 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9884-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9884-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation