Advertisement

Learning Scientific Concepts from Modelling-Based Teaching

  • John K. Gilbert
  • Rosária Justi
Chapter
  • 1.4k Downloads
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 9)

Abstract

Whilst teaching for modelling competence is only gradually being established in schools, teaching for concept development is firmly established. If the best use is to be made of curriculum time, the relationship between the meanings of the two activities must be examined and cognitive efficiencies sought. The conventional meaning of ‘concept’ enables the notions of ‘conceptual formation’, ‘conceptual evolution’ and ‘conceptual change’ to be discussed in respect of single concepts. Science education in respect of concepts involves appropriate changes in a person’s ontology, epistemology, and meta-representational competence. However, the established model of conceptual change meets a series of problems arising because these three conditions are not all met. If an artefactual view of ‘concept’ is adopted, the learning approaches embedded in MBT can be adopted in single-concept work and these problems overcome. Thus the meanings of concept and model coalesce.

Keywords

Science Education Conceptual Change Concept Formation Single Concept Epistemological View 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010). Science: Foundation to year 10 curriculum. Canberra, Australia: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.Google Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, T., Zhang, D., & Neilson, D. (2011). Model based inquiry in the high school physics classroom: An exploratory study of implementation and outcomes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 258–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clement, J. J. (2008). The role of explanatory models in teaching for conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 417–452). New York, NY/London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Council, N. R. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  8. Department for Education. (2014). The national curriculum in England - Framework document. London, UK: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  9. Gilbert, J. K., & Afonso, A. S. (2015). Lifelong learning: Approaches to increasing the understanding of chemistry by everybody. In J. García-Martínez & E. Serrano-Terregosa (Eds.), Chemical education: Best practices, opportunities and trends (pp. 123–148). Weinheim, Germany: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Conceptions, misconceptions, and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilbert, J. K., Justi, R., & Queiroz, A. S. (2010). The use of a Model of Modelling to develop visualization during the learning of ionic bonding. In M. F. Taşar & G. Çakmakcı (Eds.), Contemporary science education research: International perspectives (pp. 43–51). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.Google Scholar
  12. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2008). Conceptual change in Naïve biology. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 240–263). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Justi, R., Gilbert, J. K., & Ferreira, P. F. M. (2009). The application of a ‘model of modelling’ to illustrate the importance of metavisualization in respect of the three levels of representation. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 285–307). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khan, S. (2008). Co-construction and model evolution in chemistry. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 59–78). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maia, P. F. (2009). Habilidades Investigativas no Ensino Fundamentado em Modelagem [Investigative skills in modelling-based teaching]. (PhD thesis), Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.Google Scholar
  20. Maia, P. F., & Justi, R. (2009). Learning of chemical equilibrium through modelling-based teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 603–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Medin, D. L., & Rips, L. J. (2005). Concepts and categories: Memory, meaning, and metaphysics. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrisom (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 37–72). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2011). Contributions of the Model of Modelling diagram to the learning of ionic bonding: Analysis of a case study. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 479–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2013). The relationships between modelling and argumentation from the perspective of the Model of Modelling diagram. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2007–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2014). An Instrument for analyzing arguments produced in modeling-based chemistry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(2), 192–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London, UK: King’s College, London School of Education.Google Scholar
  26. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Mental modeling in conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 391–416). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Núñez-Oviedo, M. C., Clement, J. J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Developing complex mental models in biology through model evolution. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 173–193). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oliveira, D. K. B. S., Justi, R., & Mendonça, P. C. C. (2015). The use of representations and argumentative and explanatory situations. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1402–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Passmore, C. M., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rusanen, A.-M. (2014). Towards an explanation for conceptual change: A mechanistic alternative. Science & Education, 23(7), 1413–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of science modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sinatra, G., & Pintrich, R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vosniadou, S. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: Preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vosniadou, S., Baltas, A., & Vamvakoussi, X. (2007). Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  37. Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2013). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science & Education, 23(7), 1427–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • John K. Gilbert
    • 1
  • Rosária Justi
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of ReadingBerkshireUK
  2. 2.Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations