Examining the relationship between students' understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 653-684

  Gobert, Janice D ^a   O'Dwyer, Laura ^b   Horwitz, Paul ^c   Buckley, Barbara C ^d   Levy, Sharona Tal ^e   Wilensky, Uri ^f  

^a WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^c The Concord Consortium ^*  (United States)

^d Mathematics Science and Technology Program ^*  (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^f NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Inquiry based teaching; Learning environment; Model based learning; Nature of models; Nature of science; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952396982     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500691003720671     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
2. Bell, P. (1998). Designing for students' science instruction using argumentation to classroom debate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
3. Bisard, W. J., Aron, R. H., Francek, M., & Nelson, B. D. (1994). Assessing selected physical science and earth science misconceptions of middle school through university pre-service teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 24(1), 38-42.
4. Buehl, M., & Alexander, P. (2005). Students' domain-specific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 697-726.
5. Burbules, N. C., & Linn, M. C. (1991). Science education and philosophy of science: Congruence or contradiction? International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 798-817.
6. 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 grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514-529.
7. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28, 235-251.
8. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1995). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. In D. Perkins, J. Schwartz, M. Maxwell West, & M. Stone Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school (pp. 39-55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Champagne, A., Gunstone, R., & Klopfer, L. (1985). Effecting changes in cognitive structures among physics students. In L. West & A. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 61-90). New York: Academic Press.
10. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120.
11. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic reasoning in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
12. Chittleborough, G., Treagust, D., Mamiala, M., & Mocerino, M. (2005). Students' perceptions of the role of models in the process of science and in the process of learning. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 195-212.
13. Clement, J. (1993). Model construction and criticism cycles in expert reasoning. In The proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 336-341). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Clement, J., Brown, B., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding 'anchoring conceptions' for grounding instruction on students' intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554-565.
15. Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers' conceptions of modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379-1401.
16. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas in science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
17. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
18. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science. New York: Routledge.
19. Estes, D., Chandler, M., Horvath, K. J., & Backus, D. W. (2003). American and British college students' epistemological beliefs about research on psychological and biological development. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 625-642.
20. Giere, R. N. (1990). Explaining science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Gilbert, J. K. (Ed.). (1993). Models and modelling in science education. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
22. Gobert, J. (2000). A typology of models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 937-977.
23. Gobert, J. (2005). Leveraging technology and cognitive theory on visualization to promote student's science learning and literacy. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 73-90). Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag.
24. Gobert, J., & Buckley, B. (2000). Special issue editorial: Introduction to model-based teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894.
25. Gobert, J., Buckley, B., & Clarke, J. (2004, April). Scaffolding model-based reasoning: Representations, information-processing, and cognitive affordances. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
26. Gobert, J., & Clement, J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53.
27. Gobert, J., & Discenna, J. (1997). The relationship between students' epistemologies and model-based reasoning. Kalamazoo: Department of Science Studies, Western Michigan University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409164.)
28. Gobert, J., Heffernan, N., Beck, J., & Koedinger, K. (2009). ASSISTments Meets Science Learning. Proposal funded by the US Department of Education (R305A090170).
29. Gobert, J., Heffernan, N., Ruiz, C., & Kim, R. (2007). AMI: ASSISTments Meets Inquiry. Proposal funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF-DRL# 0733286).
30. Gobert, J., & Horwitz, P. (2002). Do modeling tools help students learn science? In @ Concord, 6(1), 19.
31. Gobert, J. D., & Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students' epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 7-22.
32. Gobert, J., Slotta, J., & Pallant, A. (2002, April). Inquiry learning through students' east-west coast collaboration. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
33. Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students' understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
34. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822.
35. Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151-183.
36. Hammer, D. (1995). Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics. Science Education, 79(4), 393-413.
37. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. Hennessey, M. G. (1995, September). Students' epistemological stance: Nature of learning and nature of science. Paper presented at the Cognitive Studies and Educational Practice Meetings of the McDonnell Foundation, Nashville, TN.
39. Hennessey, M. G., & Beeth, M. (1993, April). Students' reflective thoughts about science content: A relationship to conceptual change learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
40. Hesse, M. B. (1963). Models and analogies in science. London: Sheed & Ward.
41. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440-454.
42. Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 541-562.
43. Hofer, B. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.
44. Hofer, B. (2006a, May). Understanding students' epistemic beliefs in math and science: An overview of constructs, measures, and research. Paper presented at the BRAIN Conference (Broadening Research at International Network: Developing a Cross-Domain Research Framework for Science and Math Education), National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
45. Hofer, B. (2006b). Domain specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions, persistent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 85-95.
46. Honda, M. (1994). Linguistic inquiry in the science classroom: 'It is science, but it's not like a science problem in a book' (Working Papers in Linguistics). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002a). Modelling, teachers' views on the nature of modeling, and implications for the education of modelers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-388.
48. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002b). Science teachers' knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modeling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273-1292.
49. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100.
50. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
51. Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 301-317). Dordrecht: Springer.
52. Levy, S. T., Kim, H., & Wilensky, U. (2004, April). Connected Chemistry-A study of secondary students using agent-based models to learn chemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
53. Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Crossing levels and representations: The Connected Chemistry (CC1) curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 224-242.
54. Linn, M., Songer, N. B., Lewis, E. L., & Stern, J. (1991). Using technology to teach thermodynamics: Achieving integrated understanding. In D. L. Ferguson (Ed.), Advanced technologies in the teaching of mathematics and science (pp. 5-60). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
55. Linn, M. C., & Muilenberg, L. (1996). Creating lifelong science learners: What models form a firm foundation? Educational Researcher, 25(5), 18-24.
56. Lowe, R. (1989). Scientific diagrams: How well can students read them? What research says to the science and mathematics teacher (Vol. 3). Perth: Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.
57. Lowe, R. (1993). Constructing a mental representation from an abstract technical diagram. Learning & Instruction, 3, 157-179.
58. Muis, K., Bendixen, L., & Haerle, F. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3-54.
59. NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National science education standards: 1996. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
60. Op't Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2006). Epistemic dimensions of students' mathematics-related belief systems. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1-2), 57-70.
61. Paulsen, M. B., & Wells, C. T. (1998). Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs of college students. Research in Higher Education, 39(4), 365-384.
62. Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Teaching thinking: From ontology to education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 67-85.
63. Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
64. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
65. Raghavan, K., & Glaser, R. (1995). Model-based analysis and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum. Science Education, 79(1), 37-61.
66. Royce, J. R., & Mos, L. P. (1980). Manual: Psycho-epistemological profile. Alberta: Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Psychology, University of Alberta.
67. Sao Pedro, M., Gobert, J., Beck, J., & Heffernan, N. (2009, July). Can an intelligent tutor teach the control of variables strategy for scientific inquiry? Paper presented at the Cognitive Science Society Conference, Amsterdam.
68. Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O., & Barker, S. (2003). Epistemological beliefs across domains using Biglan's classification of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 44(3), 347-366.
69. Schwarz, C. (2002, April). Is there a connection? The role of meta-modeling knowledge in learning with models. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle, WA.
70. Schwarz, C., & White, B. (1999, March). What do seventh grade students understand about scientific modeling from a model-oriented physics curriculum? Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston.
71. Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Meta-modeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.
72. Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2006). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support pre-service K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158-186.
73. Schwarz, C. V., Meyer, K., & Sharma, A. (2007). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 243-269.
74. Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21-50.
75. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2009). The relation between students' epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing in a modeling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1205-1229.
76. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessy, G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349-422.
77. Smith, C., & Wenk, L. (2003, March). The relation among three aspects of college freshman's epistemology of science. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.
78. Smith, C., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students' epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 747-785.
79. Snir, J., Smith, C., & Grosslight, L. (1988). Not the whole truth: An essay on building a conceptually enhanced computer simulation for science teaching (Tech. Rep. No. TR 88-18). Cambridge, MA: Educational Technology Center, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
80. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761-784.
81. Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2002). ChemLogo: An emergent modeling environment for teaching and learning chemistry. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the fifth international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) (pp. 451-458). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
82. Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected Chemistry-Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 12(3), 285-302.
83. Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 189-210). New York: Academic Press.
84. Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2001, April). Learning introductory organic chemistry: Secondary students' understanding of the role of models and the development of scientific ideas. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
85. Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2002). Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368.
86. van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers' knowledge of models and modeling in science. International Journal for Science Education, 21(11), 1141-1153.
87. Wenk, L., & Smith, C. (2004, April). The impact of first-year college science courses on epistemological thinking: A comparative study. Paper presented at the National Association of Science Teachers, Vancouver.
88. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 24, 99-157.
89. Wilensky, U. (1999a). NetLogo. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo
90. Wilensky, U. (1999b). GasLab: An extensible modeling toolkit for exploring micro-and-macro-views of gases. In N. Roberts, W. Feurzeig, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Computer modeling and simulation in science education (pp. 151-178). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
91. Wilensky, U. (2001). Modeling nature's emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. Paper presented at the Eurologo 2001 Conference, Linz, Austria. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/papers/MEE/
92. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.