In this article the authors introduce the Inventive Model as a theoretical base for science instruction and for software development in science education. The Inventive Model is a constructivistic approach to conceptual change. This model is presented as a response to the urgent need for a theoretical framework for software development in the area of conceptual understanding in science and mathematics. The model is based on the theoretical works of the pioneers in the field as well as the recent innovative/effective practices in science instruction. Some components of the model have been tested successfully in the past. However, the effectiveness of the whole model needs to be tested.
Natural language understanding is a major limitation of computer-based instruction [1]. However, in this article it is shown how simple diagnostic tests, students' log files, and other advantages of computer assisted instruction (CAI) may compensate this limitation. In ongoing research the authors are developing an instructional multimedia program for conceptual change in physics based on the model. The multimedia program can be used individually, in small groups, or by the whole class under the teacher's guidance. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons between the individualized version of the multimedia program and the traditional physics instruction are the main goals of the ongoing research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FrickT. W., Artificial Tutoring Systems: What Computers Can and Can't Know, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16:2, pp. 107–124, 1997.
2.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. C.CohenP. A., Effectiveness of Computer-Based College Teaching: A Meta-Analysis of Findings, Review of Educational Research, 50:4, pp. 525–544, 1980.
3.
KrugerC.PalacioD.SummersM., Surveys of English Primary Teachers' Conceptions of Force, Energy, and Materials, Science Education, 76:4, pp. 339–351, 1992.
4.
National Science Foundation, Report on the National Science Foundation Disciplinary Workshops on Undergraduate Education, Author, Washington, D.C., 1989.
5.
National Research Council, Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.
6.
TrowbridgeL. W.BybeeR. W., Becoming a Secondary School Teacher (5th Edition), Macmilian Publishing Company, New York, 1990.
7.
BakerE. L.O'NeilH. F., Technology Assessment: In Education and Training, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1994.
8.
OlafterganS., Conceptual and Methodological Shortcomings in Hypertext/Hypermedia Design and Research, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16:3, pp. 209–235, 1997.
9.
NovakJ. D.GovinD. B., Learning How to Learn, Cambridge University Press, London, England, 1984.
10.
DykstraD.BoyleC. F.MonarchI. A., Studying Conceptual Change in Learning Physics, Science Education, 76:6, pp. 615–652, 1992.
11.
HallounI. A.HestenesD., The Initial Knowledge State of College Physics Students, American Journal of Physics, 53, pp. 1043–1055, 1985.
12.
MestreJ. P., Cognitive Aspects of Learning and Teaching Science, in Teacher Enhancement for Elementary and Secondary Science and Mathematics: Status, Issues, and Problems, FitzsimmonsS. J.KerpelmanL. C. (eds.), National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1994.
13.
HallounI. A.HestenesD., Modeling Instruction in Mechanics, in Studying Conceptual Change in Learning Physics, DykstraD.BoyleC. F.MonarchI. A. (eds.), Science Education, 76:6, pp. 615–652, 1987.
14.
TrowbridgeD. E.McDermottL. C., Investigation of Student Understanding of the Concept of Velocity in One Dimension, American Journal of Physics, 48:12, pp. 1020–1028, 1980.
15.
TrowbridgeD. E.McDermottL. C., Investigation of Student Understanding of the Concept of Acceleration in One Dimension, American Journal of Physics, 49:3, pp. 242–253, 1981.
16.
McDermottL. C., Research on Conceptual Understanding in Mechanics, Physics Today, 37:7, pp. 24–32, 1984.
17.
BoyleR. K.MaloneyD. P., Effects of Written Text on Usage of Newton's Third Law, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28:2, pp. 123–139, 1991.
18.
HallounI. A.HestenesD., Common Sense Concepts About Motion, American Journal of Physics, 53:11, pp. 1056–1065, 1985.
19.
NeressianN. J., Conceptual Change in Science and in Science Education, Synthese, 80, pp. 163–183, 1989.
20.
ThijsG. D., Evaluation of an Introductory Course on “Force” Considering Students' Preconceptions, Science Education, 76:2, pp. 155–174, 1992.
21.
PiagetJ., Genetic Epistemology, W. W. Norton, New York, 1971.
22.
BrunerJ., The Process of Education, Vintage, New York, 1960.
23.
YagerR. E.TamirP., The STS Approach: Reasons, Intentions Accomplishments and Outcomes, Science Education, 77:6, pp. 637–658, 1993.
24.
AusubelD. P., Learning Theory and Classroom Practice, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Ontario, Canada, 1967.
25.
AusubelD. P.RobinsonF. G., School Learning: An Introduction to Educational Psychology, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1969.
26.
BowdA.McDougalD.YewchukC., Educational Psychology for Canadian Teachers, Brace and Company, Harcourt Toronto, Canada, 1994.
27.
GoodT. L.BorphyJ., Contemporary Educational Psychology, Longman Inc., New York, 1990.
28.
WestC. K.FarmerJ. A.WolffP. M., Instructional Design: Implications from Cognitive Science, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1991.
29.
PosnerG. J.StrikeK. A.HewsonP. W.GertzogW. A., Accommodations of a Scientific Conception, Science Education, 66:20, pp. 211–227, 1982.
30.
MinstrelJ., Conceptual Development Research in Natural Setting of a Secondary School Science Classroom, in Education in the 80's Science, RoweM. B. (ed.), National Education Association, Washington, D.C., 1986.
31.
GraysonD. J.McDermottL. C., Use of the Computer for Research on Student Thinking in Physics, American Journal of Physics, 64:5, p. 28, 1996.
32.
DekkersP. J. J. M.ThijsG. D., Making Productive Use of Students' Initial Conceptions in Developing the Concept of Force, Science Education, 82:1, pp. 31–51, 1998.
ClementJ., Students' Preconceptions in Introductory Mechanics, American Journal of Physics, 50:1, pp. 66–71, 1982.
35.
ClementJ., Overcoming Students' Misconceptions in Physics: The Role of Anchoring Intuitions and Analogical Validity, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Vol. 3, NovakJ. (ed.), Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, pp. 84–97, 1987.
36.
CareyS., Conceptual Change in Childhood, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.
37.
MinstrelJ.StimpsonV., Students' Belief in Mechanics: Cognitive Process Framework, in Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on Reasoning and Higher Education, DykstraD.HillK. (eds.), Boise State University Boise, Indiana, 1986.
38.
DriverR.AsokoH.LeachJ.MortimerE.ScottP., Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom, Educational Researcher, 23:7, pp. 5–12, 1994.
39.
BergerC., Attainment of Skill in Using Science Processes: Instruction, Methodology, and Analysis, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19:3, pp. 249–260, 1982.
40.
DershimerC.BergerC.JacksonD., Designing Hypermedia for Concept Development: Formative Evaluation through Analysis of Log Files, in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, GabelD. L. (ed.), Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1991.
41.
AndaloroG.BellomonteL. L.LupoL.Sperandeo-MineoR. M., Construction and Validation of a Computer-Based Diagnostic Module on Average Velocity, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31:1, pp. 53–63, 1994.
42.
di SessaA. A., Toward an Epistemology of Physics, Berkley Cognitive Science Series, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1987.
43.
DuitR., On the Role of Analogies and Metaphors in Learning Science, Science Education, 75:6, pp. 649–672, 1991.
44.
OlsonD. R., The Mind According to Bruner, Educational Researcher, 29:4, pp. 29–31, 1992.
45.
RumelhartD. E.NormanD. A., Analogical Processes in Learning, in Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, AndersonJ. R. (ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1981.
46.
BakerD. R.PiburnM. D., Constructing Science in Middle and Secondary School Classrooms, A Viacom Company, Needham Heights, Maryland, 1997.
47.
JonesT.BergerC., Students' Use of Multimedia Science Instruction: Designing for MTV Generation, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4:4 pp. 305–320, 1995.
48.
MayerR. E., Multimedia Learning: Are We Asking the Right Question?Educational Psychologist, 32:1, pp. 1–19, 1997.
49.
PriceC. L., Microcomputers in Science, Journal of Science Education, 1:2, pp. 30–33, 1989.
50.
ThorntonR. K.SokoloffD. R., Learning Motion Concepts Using Real-Time Microcomputer-Based Laboratory Tools, American Journal of Physics, 58:9, pp. 858–867, 1990.
51.
BergerC.LuC.BelzerS.VossB., Research on the Uses of Technology in Science Education, in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, GabelD. L. (ed.), Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1994.
52.
RidingR. J., On the Nature of Cognitive Style, Educational Psychology, 17:1, pp. 29–49, 1997.
53.
MintzesJ. J.WanderseeJ. H.NovakJ. D., Teaching Science for Understanding: A Human Constructivist View, Academic Press, New York, 1998.
