Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 46, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 632-654

  Schwarz, Christina V ^a   Reiser, Brian J ^b   Davis, Elizabeth A ^c   Kenyon, Lisa ^d   Achér, Andres ^b   Fortus, David ^e   Shwartz, Yael ^e   Hug, Barbara ^f   Krajcik, Joe ^c  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^d WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Learning progression; Scientific modeling; Scientific practice; Student learning

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL MOTIVATION; LEARNING PROGRESSION; META-KNOWLEDGE; SCIENTIFIC LITERACY; SCIENTIFIC MODELING; SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE; SENSEMAKING; STUDENT LEARNING; TWO-DIMENSION;

STUDENTS;

MODEL BUILDINGS;

EID: 68149183923     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20311     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N.G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.
3. Acher, A., Arcà, M., & SanmartI, N. (2007). Modeling as a teaching learning process for understanding materials: A case study in primary education. Science Education, 91(3), 398-418.
4. Berland, L.K., & Reiser, B.J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
5. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251.
6. Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., & Shouse, A.W. (Eds.), (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
7. Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
8. Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R.C., Marx, R.W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879.
9. Gitomer, D.H., & Duschl, R.A. (1995). Moving toward a portfolio culture in science education. In SM. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 299-326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. 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, 799-822.
11. Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.
12. Henze, I., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2007). The change of science teachers' personal knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of science education reform. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1819-1846.
13. Hogan, K., & Corey, C. (2001). Viewing classrooms as cultural contexts for fostering scientific literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 32(2), 214-243.
14. Jimenenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A.B., & Duschl, R.A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
15. 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.
16. Kenyon, L.O., Schwarz, C.V., Hug, B., & Back, H. (2008). Incorporating modeling into elementary students' scientific investigations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
17. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K.L., & Reiser, B.J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
18. Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
19. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635-679.
20. th ed., Vol. 4).Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
21. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. J. Green (Ed.), Language and educational processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H.M. (2000). Symbolizing, communicating, and mathematizing: Key components of models and modeling. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 361-383). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H.M. (2003). Foundations of models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H.M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp.3-33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Schwarz, C.V. (2002). Is there a connection? The role of meta-modeling knowledge in learning with models. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Schwarz, C.V., & Gwekwerere, Y.N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158-186.
26. Schwarz, C.V., & White, B.Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.
27. Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B.J. (2008). The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 199-219.
28. Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement, 4(1-2), 1-98.
29. Snir, J., Smith, C.L., & Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 87(6), 794-830.
30. Spitulnik, M.W., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1999). Construction of models to promote scientific understanding. In W. Feurzeig & N. Roberts (Eds.), Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education (pp. 70-94). New York: Springer-Verlag.
31. Stewart, J., Cartier, J.L., & Passmore, C.M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In MS. Donovan & J.D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515-565). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
32. Tabak, I., & Reiser, B.J. (2008). Software-realized inquiry support for cultivating a disciplinary stance. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16(2), 307-355.
33. Weizman, A., & Forms, D. (2007). Using scientific models to learn about shadows. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
34. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.
35. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. 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.