The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modelling

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 27, Issue 14, 2005, Pages 1695-1721

  Sinsa, Patrick H M ^a   Savelsbergh, Elwin R ^a,b   Van Joolingen, Wouter R ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 31144458400     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690500206408     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Bliss, J. (1994). From mental models to modelling. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn, & C. Thompsett (Eds.), Learning with artificial worlds: Computer based modelling in the curriculum (pp. 27-33). London: The Falmer Press.
3. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315.
4. Chinn, C. A & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
5. Clement, J., Brown, D., & Zeitsman, A (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding “anchoring conceptions” for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554-565.
6. Coon, T. (1988). Using STELLA simulation software in life science education. Computers in Life Science Education, 5(9), 56-71.
7. Cox, M., & Webb, M. (1994). In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn, & C. Thompsett (Eds.), Learning with artificial worlds: Computer based modelling in the curriculum (pp. 188-198). London: The Falmer Press.
8. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Education Research, 68(2), 179-291.
9. de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W. R., Lazonder, A., Ootes, S., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Wilhelm, P. (2002). Co-Lab specifications; Part 1 theoretical background (Technical Report). Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.
10. Devi, R., Tiberghien, A., Baker, M., & Brna, P. (1996). Modelling students’ construction of energy models in physics. Instructional Science, 24, 259-293.
11. Doerr, H. M. (1995). An integrated approach to mathematical modelling: A classroom study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Fransisco, CA, 18 April.
12. Doerr, H. M. (1996). STELLA ten years later: A review of the literature. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 201-224.
13. Doyle, J. K., & Ford, D. N. (1998). Mental models concepts for system dynamics research. System Dynamics Review, 14(1), 3-29.
14. Erkens, G. (1998). Multiple episode protocol analysis (MEPA 4.0) (Internal Publication). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Department of Educational Sciences, Utrecht University.
15. Forrester, J. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
16. Fretz, E. B., Wu, H., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2003). An investigation of software supporting modelling practices. Research in Science Education, 32, 567-589.
17. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, Part 1: Horses for courses ? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83-97.
18. Gobert, J., & Discenna, J. (1997). The relationship between students’ epistemologies and model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
19. Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, Physics Education Research Supplement, 68, 552-559.
20. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modelling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440-454.
21. Hestenes, D. (1997). Modelling methodology for physics teachers. In E. Redish, & J. Rigden (Eds.), The changing role of the physics department in modern universities, American Institute of Physics Part II (pp. 935-957).
22. Heuvelmans, A. P. J. M., & Sanders, P. F. (1993). Beoordelaarsoverstemming [Inter-judgement reliability measurement]. In T. J. H. M. Eggen, & P. F. Sanders (Eds.), Psychometrie in de praktijk [Psychometrics in practice] (pp. 443-469). Arnhem, The Netherlands: CITO.
23. Hogan, K. (1999). Relating students’ personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Science Education, 83(1), 1-32.
24. Hogan, K., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cognitive comparisons of students’ systems modelling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 319-345.
25. Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1996). Making dynamic modelling accessible to pre-college science students. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 233-257.
26. Jonassen, D. H., Strobel, J., & Gottdenker, J. (2005). Modelling for meaningful learning. Learning Sciences and Technologies Group (Ed.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies. (pp. 7-28). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
27. Kainz, D., & Ossimitz, G. (2002). Can students learn stock-flow-thinking? An empirical investigation Paper presented at the 2002 System Dynamics Conference, Palermo, Italy.
28. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689.
29. Kurtz dos Santos, A. C., & Ogborn, J. (1994). Sixth form students’ ability to engage in computational modelling. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10, 182-200.
30. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., & Savelsbergh, E. R. (2003). The effect of external representation on constructing computer models of complex phenomena. Instructional Science, 31(6), 395-418.
31. Löhner S., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2005). Students’ reasoning during modelling in an inquiry learning environment. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21(3), 441-461.
32. Milrad, M., Spector, J. M., & Davidsen, P. I. (2002). Model facilitated learning. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practice (pp. 13-27). London: Kogan Page
33. Mandinach, E. B. (1988). The cognitive effects of simulation-modelling software and systems thinking on learning and achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
34. Ogborn, J. (1999). Modelling clay for thinking and learning. In N. Roberts, W. Feurzeig, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Computer modelling and simulation in science education (pp. 5-37). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
35. Ossimitz, O. (2002). Stock-flow-thinking and reading stock-flow-related graphs: An empirical investigation in dynamic thinking abilities. Paper presented at the 2002 System Dynamics Conference, Palermo, Italy.
36. Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modelling. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 1-35). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
37. Raghavan, K., Sartoris, M. L., & Glaser, R. (1998). Impact of the MARS curriculum: The mass unit. Science Education, 82, 53-91.
38. Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., & Thijssen, C. M. (2000). Group model building: A decision room approach. Simulation & Gaming, 31(3), 359-379.
39. Riley, D. (1990). Learning about systems by making models. Computers and Education, 15(1-3), 255-263.
40. Schecker, H. P. (1993). Learning physics by making models. Physics Education, 28, 102-106.
41. Schecker, H. P. (1994). System dynamics in high school physics. Proceedings of the 1994 International System Dynamics Conference, Stirling, Scotland (pp. 74-84).
42. Schecker, H. P. (1998). Physik—Modellieren, grafikorientierte modelbildungssysteme im physikunterricht [Physics—Modelling, graphically oriented model building systems in physics instruction]. Stuttgart, Germany: Ernst Klett Verlag Gmb H.
43. Spector J. M. (2000). System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simulation & Gaming, 31(4), 528-535.
44. Steed, M. B. (1994). Effects of computer simulation construction on shifts in cognitive representation: A case study using STELLA. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
45. Stratford, S. J. (1997). A review of computer-based model research in pre-college science classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(1), 3-23.
46. Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students’ dynamic modelling processes: Analysing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 215-234.
47. Suthers, D. D. (1999). Effects of alternate representations of evidential relations on collaborative learning discourse. In C. M. Hoadley, & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference (pp. 611-620). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University
48. Sweeney, L. B. & Sterman, J. (2000). Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review, 16(4), 249-286.
49. Tinker, R. (1993). Modelling and theory building: Technology is support of student theorizing. In D. L. Ferguson (Ed.), Advanced educational technologies for mathematics and science (pp. 91-113). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
50. van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 671-688.
51. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modelling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-117.
52. Whitfield, A. (1988). STELLA and its impact on the teaching of mathematical modelling. In F. Lovis, & E. D. Tagg (Eds.), Computers in education, Proceedings of the IFIP TC3 First European Conference on Computers in Education—ECCE 88, International Federation for Information Processing (pp. 299-304). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.
53. Wild, M. (1996). Mental models and computer modelling. Journal of Computer Assisted Reasoning, 12(1), 10-21.
54. Zhang, B., Wu, H., Fretz, E. B., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R., David, E. A., & Soloway, E. (2002). Comparison of modelling practices of experts and novice students using a dynamic, student-centred modelling tool. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
55. Zohar, A. (1995). Reasoning about interactions between variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(10), 1039-1063.