Advertisement

STUDENTS’ EVALUATION OF THE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC MODELS THAT REPRESENT NATURAL ENTITIES AND PHENOMENA

  • Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi
Article

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the current study was to explore learners’ evaluation of the credibility of scientific models that represent natural entities and phenomena. Participants were 845 students in grades 9 – 11 (aged 15 – 17 years) and 108 prospective science teachers in Oman, totaling 953 students. A survey called Epistemologies about the Credibility of Scientific Models was designed to explore participants’ epistemological positions regarding the credibility of scientific models. This instrument was based on a credibility taxonomy proposed by the author. This taxonomy was composed of four epistemological levels: certainty, imaginary, suspicious, and denial; thus, it was called the CISD taxonomy. Findings revealed that natural entities and phenomena were assigned to CISD levels according to their level of abstractness. This level of abstractness is usually constructed by the most frequently used models to represent each natural entity or phenomenon. For instance, entities, which were usually represented by photographs or micrographs, such as meteors and meteorites, blood cells and bacteria, fell at the certainty level. On the other hand, theoretical entities such as electron cloud and photons had a high suspicious–denial combinational level. Some entities, with possible competing concrete–abstract parallel nature of the scientific models that represent them, had both high certainty and suspicious–denial levels. The overall students’ epistemological perceptions across grade levels showed a decrease in the certainty level and an increase in the imaginary level. It might also be plausible to conclude that new, detailed microscopic and more abstract knowledge raised the suspicious and denial levels of some entities. Further research based on qualitative research methodologies is needed to explore these findings.

KEY WORDS

abstract-theoretical models concrete models credibility imaginary modeling naïve realism natural entities scientific models science teaching students epistemologies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AAAS. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Balushi, S. M. (2009). Factors influencing pre-service science teachers’ imagination at the microscopic level in chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1089–1110. doi: 10.1007/s10763-009-9155-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coll, R., France, B., Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coll, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science & Education, 92, 848–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2007). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students’ understanding of genetics. Science & Education, 16, 849–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilbert, J., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conception of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halloun, I. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16, 653–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison, A. G. (2001). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science & Education, 80(5), 509–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hsu, P.-H., & Yang, W.-G. (2007). Print and image integration of science texts and reading comprehension: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 639–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science & Education, 74(2), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marquez, C., Izquierdo, M., Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the water cycle. Science & Education, 90, 202–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual–spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science & Education, 83, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matthews, M. R. (2007). Models in science and in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 16, 647–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pozzer, L. L., & Roth, W. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pozzer, L., & Roth, W. (2005). Making sense of photographs. Science & Education, 89, 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roth, W.-M., Bowen, G. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 977–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science & Education, 76(6), 559–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwarz, C. V. (1998). Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, California, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Shen, J. (2006). Teaching strategies and conceptual change in a professional development program for science teachers of K-8. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (2007). From conceptual change to transformative modeling: A case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy. Science & Education, 91(6), 948–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 80(5), 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2004). Students’ understanding of the descriptive and predictive nature of teaching models in organic chemistry. Research in Science Education, 34, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum and Instruction Department, College of EducationSultan Qaboos UniversityMuscatOman

Personalised recommendations