reification of five types of modeling pedagogies with model-based inquiry (mbi) modules for high...
TRANSCRIPT
Reification of Five Types of Modeling Pedagogies with Model-Based Inquiry (MBI) Modules for High School Science Classrooms
Todd CampbellAssociate Professor Science EducationUtah State University
Presentation Overview
• Introduction
• What is Modeling and MBI
• Literature Supportive of
Investigations in Modeling
• 5 Types of Modeling Pedagogies
• Modeling Pedagogies Exemplars
• Past and Future Modeling
Research
Questions/Discussion
Introduction
• This presentation focuses on Modeling Research
• Collaborators/Co-Authorso Dr. Phil Seok Oh-Science Educator-Visiting Scholar at Utah State University
from Gyeongin National University of Education, Korea
o Mr. Drew Neilson-Science Teacher-Former Masters Student & Co-
Researcher
• Current research presented (Invited Chapter)
Campbell, T., Oh, P.S., & Neilson, D. Reification of Five Types of Modeling
Pedagogies with Model-Based Inquiry (MBI) Modules for High School Science
Classrooms. Next Generation Learning Science: Reform, Research and Results
an edited book by Sense Publishers
Modeling
• It has been declared that doing science is aptly described as making,
using, testing, and revising models.
• Modeling has also emerged as an explicit pedagogical practice in
science education reform efforts (e.g. Framework for K-12 Science
Education-National Research Council [NRC], 2011)
• Modeling is conceived as a central practice for science learning that can o allow “students to be themselves within a culture of scientific inquiry”
(Johnston, 2008, p. 12),
o support the development of explanations extracted from evidence, and
o engage students in scientific argumentation through sharing,
comparing, and deciding between competing models.
What is the purpose of modeling and what is MBI?
The purpose of modeling is to describe, explain, predict,
and communicate with others a natural phenomenon,
an event, or an entity. (Shen & Confrey, 2007, p. 950).
Model-Based Inquiry is a process in which students
“explore phenomena and construct and reconstruct
models in light of the results of scientific
investigations” (Oh & Oh, 2011).
An Example of Student Model
A Pathway We Have Used for MBI
Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling
Modeling in Science
• Situating modeling in science education begins to
make sense by considering the roles modeling plays
in the work of scientists.
• In science, models serve to describe, explain, and
predict natural phenomena and communicate scientific
ideas to others (Buckley & Boulter, 2000; Oh & Oh, 2011;
Shen & Confrey, 2007).
Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling
Modeling in Science
Examples in the work of Scientists
• Gilbert, Boulter, and Rutherford (1998) shared how Newton
used a model of white light composed heterogeneously of
colors to enable a full range of explanations surrounding
the behavior of light.
• Justi and Gilbert (1999) also provided evidence of how and when
scientists used models and modeling as ideas about
chemical kinetics evolved and became more sophisticated.
Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling
It can be seen that models help bridge the gap between
observed phenomena and theoretical ideas about why
those phenomena occur (Morrison & Morgan, 1999; Oh &
Oh, 2011).
Modeling in Science Education
The same principle applies to science learning: using
models in science classrooms is beneficial because
models support constructing and reasoning with
students’ mental models.
Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling
Modeling in Science Education
Examples
• Gobert and colleagues (Gobert, 2005; Gobert & Clement,
1999; Gobert & Pallant, 2004) showed, for example, that
the process of modeling the interior of the earth and its
dynamic movements was helpful both for enhancing
students’ understanding of the spatial and causal
aspects of plate tectonics and for fostering their
perceptions of the nature of models.
Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling
Modeling in Science Education
Examples Cont.
• Penner, Lehrer, and Schauble (1998) engaged third-grade children in
building, testing, and revising models of the human elbows and found
that with modeling even young students better understood the
mechanics of the human body.
Modeling in Science Teacher Education
• In addition, models and modeling have shown their promises in
science teacher education programs as well (Akerson et al., 2009;
Schwarz & Gwekwerere, 2007; Schwarz & White, 2005; Windschitl &
Thompson, 2006).
Current State and Gaps
• A Conceptual Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC,
2011) suggests, “Modeling can begin in the earliest grades,
with students’ models progressing from concrete
‘pictures’ and/or physical scale models … to more abstract
representations of relevant relationships in later grades”
(p. 3-9).
• However, it has been reported consistently that model-based
teaching is not widely implemented in schools and that,
when implemented, it is likely missing some important
aspects of scientific modeling (Khan, 2011).
Timeliness of Research
• In agreement with Louca et al. (in press), we recognized the need
of a project to provide teachers with conceptual, as well as
practical guidance that helps them apply scientific modeling
successfully in their classrooms.
• Such a project was actually realized thanks to the recent proposal
of five modeling pedagogies (Oh & Oh, 2011).
• This work continues Oh & Oh’s (2011) work by further
developing the five pedagogies by examining these five
practices actualized in classrooms to offer practical guidance
for applying scientific modeling successfully in classrooms.
Exploratory Modeling
Expressive Modeling
Evaluative Modeling
Experimental Modeling
Cyclic Modeling
Five Modeling Pedagogies
5 Modeling Pedagogies
It should be emphasized that the five modeling pedagogies are not exclusive to each other, as two or more modeling activities can be combined to address a single science topic.
As an example, students may learn both geocentric and heliocentric models of celestial motions by exploratory modeling (e.g., they can change planet positions in computer models and see how the planets are observed from the earth) and then participate in evaluative modeling to select an adequate model explaining a certain astronomical phenomenon (e.g., phase change of Venus).
2008-Campbell & Neilson-Inquiry More Palatable
2008-2010-Modeling modules strategically
enacted in Mr. Neilson’s yearlong physics curriculum
2010-Dr. Oh joined to further develop 5
modeling pedagogies
Authors Collaboration
Our collaboration is described as continuous effort to explore and build up model-based inquiry (MBI) in high school science classrooms.
Modeling in Mr. Neilson’s Classes
• Generally speaking, Mr. Neilson’s physics lessons are
structured in a cyclic modeling frame.
• That is, in his high school science classrooms, students are
given opportunities to develop models to explain
scientific phenomena, design investigations to test their
models, and revisit their models for improvement.
• This instructional cycle involves central facets of all the five
modeling pedagogies, even if some may be emphasized
more explicitly than others in a certain module.
Modeling in Mr. Neilson’s Classes
• We have provided the effectiveness of Mr. Neilson’s
MBI instruction in other research reports (Campbell,
Zhang, & Neilson, 2010).
• More data has recently been collected from Mr. Neilson’s
classrooms in the form of video-recordings.
• This data contains four science lessons from two different
classes in which the Electrostatic Energy module was
applied (see Campbell & Neilson, in press for additional
details about the Electrostatic Energy module).
Modeling in Mr. Neilson’s Classes
• In this research, these videotapes, as well as
documentation of the other modeling modules were
analyzed to reveal how Mr. Neilson has facilitated
modeling for his students.
• This will help reify the five modeling pedagogies so that
teachers of science can be offered informed practical
guidance for better modeling instruction.
Modeling Pedagogies in Practice: Electrostatic Energy Module
• From the electrostatic energy module, it was revealed that Mr.
Neilson’s students were engaged in expressive modeling for
a fairly long period of time.
• The task assigned to the students was to create models with
which they could explain some phenomena about static
electricity.
• To trigger student modeling, Mr. Neilson provided science
demonstrations related to static electricity and allowed the
students to suggest new demonstrations by changing
variables.
Expressive Modeling
• The electrostatic phenomena demonstrated by Mr. Neilson
became the subjects to be explained through expressive
modeling by students.
• However, Mr. Neilson did not merely ask students to come up with
models. Instead, he first emphasized that one purpose of
scientific modeling is to explain phenomena.
• On several occasions during his demonstration, Mr. Neilson stated, for
example, “You’re going to be creating your model. Remember,
your model should explain why you’re seeing what’s happening,
as well as what’s really happening” or simply, “Your model
should explain these phenomena.”
Expressive Modeling
• Mr. Neilson presented scientific models so that his students
would base their models on the canonical or normative
knowledge of science.
• The static electricity phenomena studied in Mr. Neilson’s
classroom were those that are fundamentally explained by
scientific ideas of electrons and their interactions with
other electrons, subatomic particles and materials.
• Therefore, the teacher consistently reminded the students to
connect their models to what scientists know about the
atomic structure and the movement of electrons.
• Mr. Neilson: We talked yesterday about the atom, that in the nucleus the charges
that are there are what?
• Student: Positive.
• Mr. Neilson: What, positive charges? What else is in the nucleus?
• Student: Neutrons.
• Mr. Neilson: Electrons are on the outside. … Would you say they have more
protons than electrons, more electrons than protons or equal numbers generally,
• Student: Equal.
• Mr. Neilson: Equal numbers. What do we call that situation?
• Student: Neutral.
• Mr. Neilson: Neutral, right. Is that what you said?
• Student: Yeah, I said stable.
• Mr. Neilson: Yeah, stable. … That’s what atoms are. To really
explain what’s happening here you might have to look at this model of
atoms. That’s what I mean by looking at small (details?). You might
actually have to talk about these things.
Expressive Modeling
• In the excerpt, Mr. Neilson’s last utterance demonstrates how
he reveals his desire for students to stay close to the
scientific ideas about electrons and use them in
generating their own models.
• It should also be noted that Mr. Neilson encouraged students
to express their models in alternative forms of
representation, rather than writing out lengthy
explanations.
Expressive Modeling Cont.
• He told students repeatedly, “draw your model” , “illustrate
that”, and contended, “picture and diagrams are much
better than a bunch of words.” He also indicated as well,
“the purpose of this model [is] … visualize”, and frequently
referred to a model as “mental picture” or “your vision”.
• The models represented with various semiotic resources,
such as diagrams, graphs, and three-dimensional figures. This
multiple modality enables a model to fulfill its functions
of describing complicated phenomena and
communicating abstract ideas (Oh & Oh, 2011).
Experimental Modeling
• Mr. Neilson’s expressive modeling was followed by
experimental modeling in which students were to “try
and test” their models. By “try and test” Mr. Neilson
meant various ways to “see if we can recreate” target
phenomena using models and find “evidence” to adjust
the models.
Experimental Modeling
• In a class, he explained:
The cool thing about your model is, if it makes sense to you
right now, then that’s what ought to go down. As long as
you can tell me why …, that’s the starting point. Then, what
we’ll do is, we’ll do some tests and see if we can recreate
that. If we recreate it, then we’ve given some evidence to
support your contention. … We found evidence, and then we
adjusted our model accordingly.
Experimental Modeling
• As a student suggested that there might be different
charges involved when a rod was rubbed with silk or fur,
the teacher asked reflectively, “Is it conclusive that there’s
two different charges?” He then engaged the whole
class in an experiment with an electroscope to
further investigate the student’s idea.
Experimental Modeling
• Also, when students came up with different models to explain why
two leaves of an electroscope pushed apart and came back together
with charged rods touching the top of the electroscope, he accepted
all the ideas regardless of their accuracy and suggested, “We could
test any of these theories out”. Consequently, much of the
classes that were observed was spent with conducting new
experiments suggested by students as they “tr[ied] and
test[ed]” their models.
• The explicit purpose of Mr. Neilson’s experimental modeling was to
validate student models and generate evidence to be used for
improving the models.
Cyclic Modeling
• In Mr. Neilson’s physics classrooms, expressive and
experimental modeling developed further into cyclic
modeling.
• The purpose of the cyclic modeling was to provide
students with continuous opportunities to test their
models, collect more evidence, and improve models
by pondering the evidence.
Cyclic Modeling
• Mr. Neilson explained the rationale of the cyclic modeling to his students:
What are we gonna be doing with your models as you learn more? Yeah, changing
them. I don’t like the word fixing em’. That implies you guys made a mistake.
As you get more evidence, you modify it. You make changes to it. There’s no
right answer in science. We arrive at an answer, and then maybe new evidence
shows up, and we don’t like that answer anymore, and we change it.
• We see this reflecting Mr. Neilson’s understanding of an essential aspect of
scientific models: models in science are subject to empirical and theoretical
tests and revisable as a consequence of those tests (Oh & Oh, 2011).
• It is also important for students to understand the tentative nature of
scientific models, if they are to learn science by exercising scientific practices.
Cyclic Modeling
• Mr. Neilson’s cycling modeling resulted in progressions of student
understanding of static electricity and their models about it.
• Part A (Next Slide) is a student’s initial model, where he
explains an electrostatic phenomenon with the difference in size of
atoms between an insulator and conductor.
• In his modified model, Part B (Next Slide), however, the same
student constructed his explanations using the idea of the
movement of electrons.
• Notably, his new model is not only scientifically valid, but also
able to explain more phenomena related to static electricity.
Initial Student Model
Refined Student Model
Exploratory & Evaluative Modeling
• The energy module did not include evidence of the use of
exploratory and evaluative modeling.
• When we considered the other modules and our additional
collaborating experiences throughout the year, however, it was
revealed that the exploratory modeling was applied as well in Mr.
Neilson’s physics classrooms. For example, in teaching about
centripetal force, Mr. Neilson introduced a model airplane
tied to a string and connected to a force probe to allow
students to explore several properties of the teacher-created
model and see how changes to the model influenced these
properties.
Exploratory & Evaluative Modeling
• When we look further into whether the evaluative modeling was
used in the other modules implemented throughout the year, a
similar pattern as in the Electrostatic Energy module was found:
evaluating models was generally connected to the
experimental modeling that played a more central role in Mr.
Neilson’s classrooms.
• The model evaluation did occur as students were engaged in
investigations to determine how the data fit with their current
models, but little time was devoted to students assessing
alternative models or selecting between competing models
either presented by the teacher or developed by their peers.
Conclusion
• It is commonly recognized in the science education
community that modeling is a significant part of
science and should also be applied to students
learning of science in schools.
• This research sheds light on the importance of
understanding ways scientific modeling can be
translated into classroom practices.
Conclusion
• We have used this research to reify five modeling
pedagogies using MBI modules developed and
implemented through collaborations between science
education researchers and a high school physics teacher.
• The modeling pedagogies explicated here can be used
as frameworks for teachers to select and organize
student activities in ways that are consistent with
intellectual practices of scientists and consequently,
recent reform in science education.
Looking Ahead
• Examining Discourse Modes
within Modeling Classrooms
Oh, P. S. & Campbell, T.
Understanding of Science Classrooms
in Different Countries through the
Analysis of Discourse Modes for
Building 'Classroom Science
Knowledge' (CSK). (Submitted
November 16, 2011).
Looking Ahead
• Examining Argumentation and
Explanation within Modeling
Planned Literature Review with Dr.
Oh and two Graduate Students Spring
2012
Looking Ahead
• Refining and Developing
Additional Modeling Modules
with Mr. Neilson
Spring 2012
Evaluative Modeling in Buoyancy
Modeling
Energy and Heat Transfer Module
