Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Coding in scientific modeling lessons (CS-ModeL)

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Learning standards for K-12 science education emphasize the importance of engaging students in practices that scientists perform in their profession. K-12 teachers are expected to engage students in scientific modeling, which entails constructing, testing, evaluating, and revising their own models of science phenomena while pursuing an epistemic goal. However, conceptualizing models of unobservable science phenomena without support is daunting for students. We propose that creating science simulations with block-based coding in Scratch is a promising approach to support student’s scientific modeling and learning to code. However, research indicates that preservice and in-service science teachers often hold a deficient understanding of scientific modeling instruction, and lack experience teaching with coding. Professional learning on use of block-based coding in scientific modeling instruction is needed though such interdisciplinary research is scarce. In this paper, we review pertinent literature and propose five guidelines for teacher educators striving to offer such professional learning. The guidelines informed the design and development of coding in scientific modeling lessons (CS-ModeL), which is a module and an online tool for scaffolding teachers’ learning to code science simulations, and to integrate simulation coding activities into scientific modeling lessons, respectively. We discuss how guidelines informed the design and development of CS-ModeL, as well as plans for future research.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1995). Reflections on a fifth-grade life science lesson: Making sense of children’s understanding of scientific models. International Journal of Science Education,17(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069950170105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ACM K-12 Taskforce. (2003). A model curriculum for K-12 computer science: Final report of the ACM K-12 Task Force Curriculum Committee. New York: CSTA.

  • Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal,55(7), 832–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Townsend, J. S., Donnelly, L. A., Hanson, D. L., Tira, P., & White, O. (2009). Scientific modeling for inquiring teachers network (SMIT’N): The influence on elementary teachers’ views of nature of science, inquiry, and modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education,20(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9116-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akpan, J. P. (2002). Which comes first: Computer simulation of dissection or a traditional laboratory practical method of dissection. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(4). Retrieved from http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/u12l2e.cfm

  • Bamberger, Y. M., & Davis, E. A. (2013). Middle-school science students’ scientific modelling performances across content areas and within a learning progression. International Journal of Science Education,35(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.624133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., Ashkar, T., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Learning science via animated movies: Its effect on students’ thinking and motivation. Computers & Education,56(3), 839–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baratè, A., Ludovico, L. A., Mangione, G. R., & Rosa, A. (2015). Playing music, playing with music: A proposal for music coding in primary school. International Association for Development of the Information Society. Presented at the International Conference for e-Learning. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562460.pdf

  • Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads,2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreto, D. (2015). Definitions, motivations, and learning practices in games and virtual worlds for children. In M. Orey & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 40, pp. 41–54). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreto, D., Vasconcelos, L., & Orey, M. (2018). Motivation and learning engagement through playing math video games. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction,14(2), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0036-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bau, D., Gray, J., Kelleher, C., Sheldon, J., & Turbak, F. (2017). Learnable programming: Blocks and beyond. Communications of the ACM,60(6), 72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S., Frey, T., & Vasserman, E. (2014). Spreading the word: Introducing pre-service teachers to programming in the K-12 classroom. Proceedings of SIGCSE’14, 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538963

  • Bell, R., Gess-Newsome, J., & Luft, J. (2008). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 505–518). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R. (2017). Instructional scaffolding in STEM education.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, B., & Deluca, W. (2015). Comparing traditional versus alternative sequencing of instruction when using simulation modeling. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research,16(1), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, 1–25. Retrieved from http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf

  • Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education,22(9), 895–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, B. C. (2012). Model-based learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2300–2303). Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_589

  • Burke, Q. (2012). The markings of a new pencil: Introducing programming-as-writing in the middle school classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education,4(2), 121–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagiltay, N. E., Ozcelik, E., & Ozcelik, N. S. (2015). The effect of competition on learning in games. Computers & Education,87(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., Maughn, M., Kiriazis, N., & Zuwallack, R. (2015). A review of modeling pedagogies: Pedagogical functions, discursive acts, and technology in modeling instruction. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,11(1), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1314a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravartty, A. (2010). Informational versus functional theories of scientific representation. Synthese,172, 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education,94(1), 73–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, S. L., Deuermeyer, E., & Quek, F. (2017). Supporting scientific modeling through curriculum-based making in elementary school science classes. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator,15(3), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Computer Science Teachers Association & International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). Computational thinking in K-12 education: Leadership toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-leadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4

  • Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education,90(6), 1073–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B., & Cullin, M. (2004). Supporting perspective teachers’ conceptions of modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education,26(11), 1379–1401.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508401003708381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danusso, L., Tesla, I., & Vicentini, M. (2010). Improving prospective teachers’ knowledge about scientific models and modeling: Design and evaluation of a teacher education intervention. International Journal of Science Education,32(7), 871–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dass, K., Head, M. L., & Rushton, G. T. (2015). Building an understanding of how model-based inquiry is implemented in the high school chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education,92(8), 1306–1314. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research,68(1), 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences,11(1), 63–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Boyer, J., & Black, E. W. (2007). Towards a framework for understanding electronic educational gaming. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,16(3), 225–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education,32(1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields, D. A., Searle, K. A., Kafai, Y., & Min, H. S. (2012). Debuggems to assess student learning in e-textiles. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Presented at the Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157367

  • Freitas, S. I. (2006). Using games and simulations for supporting learning. Learning, Media and Technology,31(4), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880601021967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gal-Ezer, J., & Stephenson, C. (2010). Computer science teacher preparation is critical. ACM Inroads,1(1), 61–66.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1086/518772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education. Cham: Springer Nature.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Girvan, C., Tangney, B., & Savage, T. (2013). SLurtles: Supporting constructionist learning in Second Life. Computers & Education,61(1), 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goode, J., Flapan, J., & Margolis, J. (2018). Computer science for all: A school reform framework for broadening participation in computing. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & A. Ochsner (Eds.), Diversifying digital learning: Online literacy and educational opportunity (pp. 45–65). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Google, & Gallup. (2015). Searching for computer science: Access and barriers in U.S. K-12 education. Retrieved from http://g.co/cseduresearch

  • Gouvea, J., & Passmore, C. (2017). ‘Models of’ versus ‘models for’: Toward an agent-based conception of modeling in the science classroom. Science & Education,26(1–2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9884-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouvea, J. S., Passmore, C., & Jamshidi, A. (2014). How teachers’ understandings of models and model-based reasoning influence shifts in their pedagogy. Presented at the NARST Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 571–581). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., Cooper, S., & Pea, R. (2014). Assessing computational learning in K-12. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591713

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher,42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education,25(2), 199–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, J. H., Mentz, E., & Meyer, L. (2009). Assessment strategies for pair programming. Journal of Information Technology Education Research,8, 273–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. (2006). Modeling theory in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han Koh, K., Basawapatna, A., Bennett, V., & Repenning, A. (2010). Towards the automatic recognition of computational thinking for adaptive visual language learning. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2010), 59–66. Madrid, Spain: IEEE Computer.

  • Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985-1990. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education,22(9), 1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hokayem, H., & Schwarz, C. (2014). Engaging fifth graders in scientific modeling to learn about evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,12(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9395-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbert, N., & Wilensky, U. (2018). Designing educational video games to be objects-to-think-with. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1487302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horikoshi, R. (2015). Illustrating catalysis with interlocking building blocks: A binap-ruthenium complex catalyzed asymmetric hydrogenation. Journal of Chemical Education,92(1), 332–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hundhausen, C. D., & Brown, J. L. (2007). What you see is what you code: A “live” algorithm development and visualization environment for novice learners. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing,18(1), 22–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidou, A., Repenning, A., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. S., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210163198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee. (2016). K–12 computer science framework. Retrieved from http://www.k12cs.org

  • Kafai, Y. (2012). Constructionism. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 35–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehtarnavaz, N., & Gope, C. (2006). DSP system design using LabVIEW and Simulink: A comparative evaluation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. Retrieved from http://server3.eca.ir/isi/forum/DSP_SYSTEM_DESIGN_USING_LABVIEW_AND_SIMULINK.pdf

  • Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys,37(2), 83–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenyon, L., Davis, E. A., & Hug, B. (2011). Design approaches to support preservice teachers in scientific modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education,22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9225-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Oliver, J. S. (2018). Supporting preservice teachers’ use of modeling: Building a water purifier. Innovations in Science Teacher Education,3(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E., Oliver, J. S., & Jackson, D. F. (2016). Connecting the imperatives of STEM, NGSS, deep learning and assessment: A conceptual paper. Baltimore, MD: Presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., Yuan, J., Vasconcelos, L., Shin, M., & Hill, R. B. (2018). Debugging during block-based programming. Instructional Science,46(5), 767–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9453-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,44(1), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila, T. (2005a). Models as epistemic artefacts: Toward a non-representationalist account of scientific representation. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila, T. (2005b). Models, representation, and mediation. Philosophy of Science,72(1), 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,42(2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila, T., & Boon, M. (2011). How do models give us knowledge? The case of Carnot’s ideal heat engine. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science,1(3), 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? The Science Teacher,79(3), 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krell, M., & Krüger, D. (2016). Testing models: A key aspect to promote teaching activities related to models and modelling in biology lessons? Journal of Biological Education,50(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2015.1028570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krell, M., Upmeierzu Belzen, A., & Krüger, D. (2012). Students’ understanding of the purpose of models in different biological contexts. International Journal of Biology Education,3(1a), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D. D., & Sherwood, R. D. (2007). Effect of a problem based simulation on the conceptual understanding of undergraduate science education students. Journal of Science Education and Technology,16(3), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9049-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, M., & Law, N. (2006). Peer scaffolding of knowledge building through collaborative groups with differential learning experiences. Journal of Educational Computing Research,35(2), 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. M. (2012). The importance of students’ attention to program state: A case study of debugging behavior. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, 127–134. Auckland, New Zealand: ACM.

  • Li, F. W. B., & Watson, C. (2011). Game-based concept visualization for learning programming. In Proceedings of the Third International ACM Workshop on Multimedia Technologies for Distance Learning, 37–42. Scottsdale, AZ: ACM.

  • Lin, J. W. (2014). Elementary school teachers’ knowledge of model functions and modeling processes: A comparison of science and non-science majors. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,12(1), 1197–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louca, L. T., & Constantinou, C. (2003). The use of computer-based microworlds for developing modeling skills in physical science: An example from light. International Journal of Science Education. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.510.536

  • Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior,41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahr, B. (2012). On the epistemology of models. In G. Abel & J. Conant (Eds.), Rethinking epistemology (Vol. 2, pp. 249–300). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110253573.301

  • Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. Proceedings of the 2008 Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education, 40, 367–371. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352260

  • Maloney, J. H., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education,10(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363.

    Article  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. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. A., & Young, E. S. (2006). Preservice teachers’ theory development in physical and simulated environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,43(9), 907–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2002). The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/563351.563353

  • Merrill, S. (2017). The future of coding in schools. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/future-coding-schools

  • Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., Wyse, S. A., & Ebert-May, D. (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE - Life Sciences Education,9(4), 435–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M. (2015). Reconstructing reality: Models, mathematics, and simulations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M., & Morgan, M. S. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In M. Morrison & M. S. Morgan (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social sciences (pp. 10–37). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660108.003

  • Namdar, B., & Shen, J. (2015). Modeling-oriented assessment in K-12 science education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions. International Journal of Science Education,37(7), 993–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1012185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassiff, P., & Czerwinski, W. A. (2014). Using paperclips to explain empirical formulas to students. Journal of Chemical Education,91(11), 1934–1938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. M., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Preservice elementary teachers’ evaluations of elementary students’ scientific models: An aspect of pedagogical content knowledge for scientific modeling. International Journal of Science Education,34(12), 1931–1959. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.594103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Obama, B. (2016). Computer science for all. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all

  • Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education,25(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, C., Gouvea, J. S., & Giere, R. (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 (pp. 1171–1202). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_36

  • Passmore, C., Schwarz, C. V., & Mankowski, J. (2016). Developing and using models. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 109–134). https://doi.org/10.2505/9781938946042

  • Paul, A. M. (2016). The coding revolution. Scientific American,35(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0816-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellas, N., & Peroutseas, E. (2016). Gaming in Second Life via Scratch4SL: Engaging high school students in programming courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research,54(1), 108–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115612785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piech, C., Sahami, M., Koller, D., Cooper, S., & Blikstein, P. (2012). Modeling how students learn to program. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157182

  • Reinisch, B., & Krüger, D. (2018). Preservice biology teachers’ conceptions about the tentative nature of theories and models in biology. Research in Science Education,48(1), 71–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9559-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, 255–264. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1658652

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renken, M., Peffer, M., Otrel-Cass, K., Girault, I., & Chioccariello, A. (2016). Simulations as scaffolds in science education. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 265–269. ACM.

  • Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Andrés, H., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., … Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67

  • Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education,58(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,48(9), 1050–1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education,93(4), 720–744. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support pre-service K-8 science teaching. Science Education,91(1), 158–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., … Krajcik, J. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311

  • Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction,23(2), 165–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science, National, & Council, Technology. (2016). The national artificial intelligence research and development strategic plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seel, N. M. (2017). Model-based learning: A synthesis of theory and research. Educational Technology Research and Development,65(4), 931–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9507-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Predicting first graders’ development of calculation versus word-problem performance: The role of dynamic assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology,104(1), 224. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies,18(2), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, J., Lei, J., Chang, H., & Namdar, B. (2014). Technology-enhanced, modeling-based instruction (TMBI) in science education. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 529–540). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_41

  • Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education,34(9), 1337–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soloway, E. (1993). Should we teach students to program? Communications of the ACM,36(10), 21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stammen, A., Malone, K., & Irving, K. (2018). Effects of modeling instruction professional development on biology teachers’ scientific reasoning skills. Education Sciences,8(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9100-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suárez, M. (1999). Theories, models, and representations. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 75–83). New York: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education,54(4), 1078–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review,22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education,21(11), 1141–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hook, S. J., Huziak-Clark, T. L., Nurnberger-Haag, J., & Ballone-Duran, L. (2009). Developing an understanding of inquiry by teachers and graduate student scientists through a collaborative professional development program. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(2).

  • van Joolingen, W. R. (2015). Understanding elementary astronomy by making drawing-based models. Journal of Science Education and Technology,24(2), 256–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos, L., & Kim, C. (2019, April). Integrating block-based coding into scientific modeling lessons. Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada

  • Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. (2012). Evolution in blocks: Building models of evolution using blocks. In Proceedings from Constructionism: Theory, Practice, and Impact. Presented at the Constructionism: Theory, Practice and Impact, Athens, Greece. Retrieved from http://www.aditiwagh.org/files/publications/WaghWilensky2012_Constructionism.pdf

  • Weintrop, D. (2015). Blocks, text, and the space between: The role of representations in novice programming environments. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 301–302. Atlanta, GA: IEEE.

  • Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015). To block or not to block, that is the question: Students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771860

  • Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2016). In Bringing blocks-based programming into high school computer science classrooms. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Washington, DC, USA.

  • Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). Scaling up instructional improvement through teacher professional development: Insights from the local systemic change initiative. CPRE Policy Briefs. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/32

  • Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. (2012). The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 215–220. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2157200

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction,16(1), 3–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B., & Schwarz, C. (1999). Alternative approaches to using modeling and simulation tools for teaching science. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Computer modeling and simulation in science education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science,322(1), 682–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. H., & Macrander, C. A. (2015). Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology,24(2), 396–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2004). Inquiry in pre-service classrooms: Epistemological and methodological aspects. In Proceedings of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Conference. Presented at the Vancouver, Canada. Vancouver, Canada.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2011). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,43(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wojnowski, B. S., & Pea, C. H. (2014). Models and approaches to STEM professional development. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. (2003). The why? What? when? and how? of tutoring: The development of helping and tutoring skills in children. Literacy, Teaching and Learning,7(1/2), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H., Krajcik, J., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project Growing Up Thinking Scientifically (GUTS). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.projectguts.org/resources

  • Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Hambrusch, S., & Sands, P. (2016). Expanding computer science education in schools: Understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Computer Science Education,26(4), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1257418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40(8), 792–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students’ conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(9), 1021–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Carolina, 820 Main Street, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Lucas Vasconcelos

  2. Penn State University, 304 Fischer Road, State College, PA, 16801, USA

    ChanMin Kim

Authors
  1. Lucas Vasconcelos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. ChanMin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucas Vasconcelos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vasconcelos, L., Kim, C. Coding in scientific modeling lessons (CS-ModeL). Education Tech Research Dev 68, 1247–1273 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09724-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09724-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation