Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations

Science Education

Volumn 92, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 941-967

  Windschitl, Mark ^a   Thompson, Jessica ^a   Braaten, Melissa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51149089544     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20259     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Pre-service elementary teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475-487.
2. Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). The status of K-12 science teaching in the United States: Results from a national observation survey. In D. Sunal & E. Wright (Eds.), The impact of the state and national standards on K-12 science teaching (pp. 83-122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
3. Bauer, H. (1992). Science literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
4. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
5. Bencze, J. L., & Bowen, G. M. (2001, April). Learner-controlled projects in science teacher education: Planting seeds for revolutionary change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
6. Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curricular development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 521-539.
7. Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teacher beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 471-485.
8. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). "An experiment is when you try it and see if it works": A study of 7th grade students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514-529.
9. Cartier, J. L. (2000). Using a modeling approach to explore scientific epistemology with high school students. Research report 99-1 for the National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science. Retrieved November 22, 2005, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ncisla/ publications/reports/RR991.pdf.
10. Chinn, C., and Malhotra, B. (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
11. Darden, L. (1991). Theory change in science: Strategies from Mendelian genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: DC Heath and Company.
13. Driver, R., Leach, J, Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
14. Duschl, R. (2005). The high school laboratory experience: Reconsidering the role of evidence, explanation, and the language of science. Paper commissioned by the National Research Council on the Role of the Laboratory in High School Science. Retrieved August 12, 2006, from http://www7. nationalacademies.org/bose/RDuschl_comissioned_paper_71204_HSLabs_Mtg.pdf.
15. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and application (pp. 1-37). Sense Publishers: Rotterdam/Taipei.
16. Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (2000). Metaphor and knowledge change. In E. Dietrich & A. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 295-342). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
19. Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732-748.
21. Hestenes, D. (1995). Modeling software for learning and doing physics. In Carlo Bernardini (Ed.), Thinking physics for teaching (pp. 25-65). New York: Plenum.
22. Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135.
23. Izsak, A. (2000). Inscribing the winch: Mechanisms by which students develop knowledge structures for representing the physical work with algebra. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 31-74.
24. Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.
25. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27. Kosso, P (1992). Reading the book of nature: An introduction into the philosophy of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29. Laplante, B. (1997). Teachers' beliefs and instructional strategies in science: Pushing analysis further. Science Education, 81(3), 277-294.
30. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32. Lawson, A. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by pre-service biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 237-252.
33. Lederman, N. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
34. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Origins and evolution of model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. In R. Lesh (Ed.), Models and modeling in mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving (pp. 59-70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635-680.
36. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in elementary grades. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 29-53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy: Supporting development in learning in context. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
38. Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), The handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591-646). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40. Magnussen, S., & Palincsar, A. (2005). Teaching to promote the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning about light at the elementary school level. In M. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn history, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 421-459). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
41. Mellar, H., Bliss, J., Boohan, R., Ogborn, J., & Tompsett, C. (1994). Learning with artificial worlds: Computer based modeling in the curriculum. London: Falmer Press.
42. Metcalf, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-it: A design retrospective. In M. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies in learning (pp. 77-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Metz, K. E. (2000). Young children's inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry in science learning and teaching (pp. 371-404). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
44. Nadeau, R., & Desautels, J. (1984). Epistemology and the teaching of science. Ottawa, Canada: Science Council of Canada.
45. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
46. Nersessian, N. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In M. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. Gooding, & A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2(1), 151-171.
48. Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
49. Palmquist, B. C., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Pre-service teachers' views of the nature of science during a post-baccalaureate science-teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 595-615.
50. Perkins, D.N., & Grotzer, T.A. (2000, April). Models and moves: Focusing on dimensions of causal complexity to achieve deeper scientific understanding. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
51. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52. Romberg, T., Carpenter, T., & Kwako, J. (2005). Standards based reform and teaching for understanding. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Roth, K., & Gamier, H. (2007). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16-23.
54. Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and power: Toward a political philosophy of science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
55. Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of the scientific method in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45, 341-376.
56. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
57. Scott, E. (2004). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. London: Greenwood Press.
58. Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.
59. Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., et al. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 930-954.
60. Simon, H. A. (2001). "Seek and ye shall find": How curiosity engenders discovery. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 5-20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Smith, C. L., Maclin, D. Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349-422.
62. Stewart, J., Hafner, R., Johnson, S., & Finkel E. (1992). Science as model-building: Computers and high school genetics. Educational Psychologist, 27, 317-336.
63. Stewart, J., Passmore, C., Cartier, J. Rudolph, J., & Donovan, S. (2005). Modeling for understanding in science education. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 159-184). Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum.
64. Solomon, L., Duveen, J., & Scott. L. (1994). Pupils' images of scientific epistemology. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 361-373.
65. Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
66. Tweney, R. (2001). Scientific thinking: A cognitive-historical approach. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 141-173). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. Vosniadou, S. (2002). Mental models in conceptual development, (pp. 353-368). In L. Magnani & N. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values. New York: Kluwer.
68. Wells, M., Hestenes, D., & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school physics. American Journal of Physics, 63(7), 606-619.
69. White, B., & Fredericksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
70. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143.
71. Windschitl, M. (2004). Caught in the cycle of reproducing folk theories of "Inquiry": How pre-service teachers continue the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.
72. Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2004, April). Inquiry in pre-service classrooms: Epistemological and methodological aspects. Presented at the Proceedings of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
73. Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation: The impact of pre-service instruction on teachers' understandings of model-based inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783-835.
74. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (April, 2007). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic disciplinary discourses for use in classrooms. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.