The purpose of this study was to develop a framework for analyzing and evaluating student-constructed models of physical phenomena and monitoring the progress of these models. Moreover, we aimed to examine whether this framework could capture differences between models created using different computer-based modeling tools; namely, computer-based programming environments which, in prior research, were found to differ in various aspects of the models constructed through them. We analyzed 220 computer-based models of physical phenomena developed by two groups of elementary-school students. Using open coding we developed a framework that includes five elements of scientific models that code for representations of: (i) the physical objects; (ii) the physical entities; (iii) the object behaviors; (iv) the interactions among physical objects, physical entities, and object behavior(s); and (v) the accuracy of the phenomenon depiction. The implementation of this framework confirmed that it can differentiate student-generated models according to their sophistication and structural components, independent of the computer-based programming environments used to create the models.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellPh. (1995, April). How far does light go? Individual and collaborative sensemaking of scientific evidence. AERA, pp. 1–36.
2.
ClementJ. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism. In GloverJ. A.RonningR. R., & ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 341–381). New York: Plenum.
3.
ColellaV. A.KlopferE., & ResnickM. (2000). Adventures in modeling: Exploring complex, dynamic systems with Starlogo.New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
CollR. K., & FranceB. (2005). The role of models and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.
5.
ConstantinouC. P. (1996). The Cocoa microworld as an environment for modeling physical phenomena. International Journal of Continuing Education and Life-Long Learning, 8(2), 65–83.
6.
CullinM. J., & CrawfordB. A. (2004). The interplay between prospective science teachers' modeling strategies and understandings. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia.
7.
de JongO., & van DrielJ. H. (2001). Developing pre-service teachers' content knowledge and PCK of models and modeling. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
8.
diSessaA. A. (1982). Understanding Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6, 37–75.
9.
diSessaA. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In FormanG. & PufallP. B. (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
diSessaA. A.AbelsonH., & PlogerD. (1991). An overview of Boxer. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 3–15.
11.
DuitR. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.
12.
FrancoeurE. (1997). The forgotten tool: The design and use of molecular models. Social Studies of Science, 27, 7–40.
13.
GilbertJ. (1995). The role of models and modelling in some narratives in science learning. Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
14.
GilbertJ. K.BoulterC., & RutherfordM. (1998). Models in explanations, Part 1: Horses for courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 83–97.
15.
GilbertS. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 73–80.
16.
GlynnS. M., & DuitR. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. In GlynnS. M. & DuitR. (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
GobertD. J., & BuckleyB. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–894.
18.
GolinG. (1997). Structure of scientific knowledge and curriculum design. Interchange, 28(2,3), 159–169.
19.
HardwickeA. J. (1995). Using molecular models to teach chemistry: Part 2, Using models. School Science Review, 77(279), 47–56.
20.
HarrisonA. G. (2001). Models and PCK: Their relevance for practicing and pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
21.
HestenesD. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60, 732–748.
22.
HestenesD. (1997) Modeling methodology for physics teachers. In RedishE. F. & RigdenJ. S. (Eds.), The changing role of physics departments in modern universities: Proceedings of International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education (pp. 935–957). New York: The American Institute of Physics.
23.
HuddleA. P.WhiteM. D., & RogersF. (2000). Using a teaching model to correct known misconceptions in electrochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(1), 104–110.
24.
InghamA. M., & GilbertJ. K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1011–1026.
25.
JustiR. S., & GilbertJ. 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
26.
KoponenI. (2007). Models and modelling in physics education: A critical re-analysis of philosophical underpinnings and suggestions for revisions. Science & Education, 16(7–8), 751–773.
27.
LavonenM. J.MeisaloV. J.LattuM., & SutinenE. (2003). Concretising the programming task: A case study in a secondary school. Computers & Education, 40, 115–135.
28.
LehrerR., & SchaubleL. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy: Supporting development in learning in context. In DamonW.LernerR. M.RenningerK. A., & SigelI. E. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153–196). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
29.
LeshR.HooverM.HoleB.KellyA., & PostT. (2000). Principles for developing thought revealing activities for students and teachers. In KellyA. & LeshR. (Eds.), The handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–646). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
LinnM. C. (2003) Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 727–758.
31.
LoucaL. (2004). Case studies of fifth-grade student modeling in science through programming: Comparison of modeling practices and conversions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
32.
LoucaL.DruinA.HammerD., & DreherD. (2003). Students' collaborative use of computer-based programming tools in science: A descriptive study. In WassonB.LudvigsenS., & HoppeU. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003 (CSCL) (pp. 109–118). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33.
LoucaT. L., & ZachariaC. Z. (2008). The use of computer-based programming environments as computer modeling tools in early science education: The cases of textual and graphical program languages. International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), 1–37.
34.
MetcalfS. J.KrajcikJ., & SolowayE. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In JacobsonM. & KozmaR. B. (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies in learning (pp. 77–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Research Council. (1990). National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC: National Academy.
37.
PapaevripidouM.ConstantinouC. P., & ZachariaZ. C. (2007). Modeling complex marine ecosystems: An investigation of two teaching approaches with fifth graders. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 145–157.
PapertS. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer.New York: Basic Books.
40.
PeaR. (1984). Intergrading human and computer intelligence. Technical Report No. 32. Banks Street College of Education, New York.
41.
PennerD. (2001). Cognition, computers and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling. In SecadaW. G. (Ed.), Review of research in education.Washington, DC: AERA.
42.
PennerD. E.GilesN. D.LehrerR., & SchaubleL. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.
43.
RedishE. F., & WilsonJ. M. (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: M.U.P.P.E.T. American Journal of Physics, 61(3), 222–232.
44.
ScheckerH. P. (1993). The didactic potential of computer aided modeling for physics education. In FergusonD. L. (Ed.), Advanced educational technologies for mathematics and science.New York: Springer-Verlag (NATO series).
45.
SchwarzC. V., & GwekwerereY. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1): 158–187.
46.
SchwarzC. V.ReiserB. J.DavisE. A.KeynonL.AcherA.FortusD. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.
47.
SherinB. (1996). The symbolic basis of physical intuition. A study of two symbol systems in physics instruction. Unpublished dissertation Thesis.
48.
SherinB.diSessaA. A., & HammerD. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118.
49.
SinghG., & ChignellM. H. (1992). Components of the visual computer. The Visual Computer, 9, 115–142.
50.
SmithD. C., & CypherA. (1999). Making programming easier for children. In DruinA. (Ed.), The design of children's technology.San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
51.
StratfordS. J. (1997). A review of computer-based model research in precollege science classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(1), 3–23.
52.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
ThompsonP. W. (1985). A Piagetian approach to transformation geometry via micro-worlds. Mathematics Teacher, 78(6), 465–471.
54.
TomasiJ. (1988). Models and modelling in theoretical chemistry. Journal of Molecular Structure, 179, 273–292.
55.
van DrielJ. H., & VerloopN. (2002). Experienced teachers' knowledge of teaching and learning of models and modeling in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1255–1272.
56.
WhiteB. Y., & FrederiksenJ. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16(11), 3–118.
57.
WilenskyU., & ResnickM. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.
58.
WindschitlM.ThompsonJ., & BraatenM. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378.
