From conceptual change to transformative modeling: A case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy

Science Education

Volumn 91, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 948-966

  Shen, Ji ^a   Confrey, Jere ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35948940109     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20224     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
2. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317-337.
3. Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4. Casperson, J. M., & Linn, M. C. (2006). Scaffolded visualizations for electrostatics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 316-323.
5. Clark, D., & Jorde, D. (2004). Helping students revise disruptive experientially supported ideas about thermodynamics: Computer visualizations and tactile models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 1-23.
6. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.
7. Clement, J., & Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2003, March). Abduction and analogy in scientific model construction. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
8. Collins, A., & Gentner, D. (1987). How people construct mental models. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in thought and language (pp. 243-265). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343-363.
10. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-55.
11. Confrey, J., & Kazak, S. (2006). A thirty-year reflection on constructivism in mathematics education in PME. In A. Gutiérrez and P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 305-345). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
12. Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2006, March). From constructivism to modeling. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Middle-East Teachers of Science, Mathematics and Computing, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Delta Science Module II. (1999). Astronomy. Nashua, NH: Delta Education.
13. Doerr, H. M. (1996). Integrating the study of trigonometry, vectors, and force through modeling. School Science and Mathematics, 96(8), 407-418.
14. Duit, R. (2002). Bibliography- STCSE: Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.ipn.unikiel.de/ aktuell/ stcse/stcse.html
15. Etkina, E., Warren, A., & Gentile, M. (2006). The role of models in physics instruction. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 34-39.
16. Frederiksen, J. R., White, B. Y., & Gutwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 806-836.
17. Gibbons, P. C., McMahon, A. P., & Wiegers, J. F. (2003). Hands-on current electricity: A professional development course. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15, 1-11.
18. Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic modeling for meaningful understanding of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1019-1041.
19. Hesse, M. B. (1965). Forces and fields. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co.
20. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55, 440-454.
21. Keeves, J. (2002). Learning in schools: A modeling approach. International Education Journal, 3(2), 114-125.
22. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 949-968.
23. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
24. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 101 -159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. 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: Cambridge University Press.
29. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2007, April). Designing a cumulative science education. In R. G. Duncan & R. A. Duschl (Chairs), What progresses in a learning progression? Symposium conducted at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
30. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics (pp. 105-109). In Perceptuo-motor activity and imagination in mathematical learning. Proceedings of the 27th Psychology of Mathematics Education Conference, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Vol. 1.
32. Nunez-Oviedo, M. C., & Clement, J. (2003, March). Model competition: A strategy based on model based teaching and learning theory. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
33. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.
34. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
35. Roth, W., Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Han, J. Y. (2005). Critical graphicacy: Understanding visual representation practices in school science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer.
36. Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2005, April). What scientists say: Scientists' views of models. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
37. Shen, J. (2006). Teaching strategies and conceptual change in a professional development program for science teachers of K-8. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis.
38. Shen, J. (2007, April). Justifying alternative model: A case study on K-8 science teachers' understanding of frames of reference in astronomy. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Association for Educational Research, Chicago, IL.
39. Shen, J., Gibbons, P., Wiegers, J., & McMahon, A. (in press). Using research based assessment tools in professional development in current electricity. Journal of Science Teacher Education.
40. Shin, S.-J., & Lemon, O. (2003). Diagrams. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University: Metaphysics Research Lab.
41. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, a project of the national science teachers association (pp. 177-121). New York: Macmillan.
42. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & 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.
43. Yin, R. K. (2002). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.