Advertisement

Learning About Science Through Modelling-Based Teaching

  • John K. Gilbert
  • Rosária Justi
Chapter
  • 1.3k Downloads
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 9)

Abstract

MBT provides an effective way to learn about the nature of the scientific enterprise, a major aim of contemporary science education. The established view of the nature of science, the consensus view that asserts that the structure of the enterprise of science is identical whenever it is conducted, has been subject to extensive criticism. In order to investigate the contribution of MBT to an understanding of the scientific enterprise, the ‘Family Resemblance’ and the ‘Whole Science’ views of it were adopted. By doing so, we were able to investigate the possible contribution of each aspect of the activity of modelling to an understanding of the enterprise of science within a broader view. It was found that MBT did so, but that the development of understanding was only consolidated when several modelling activities had been undertaken. Finally, a case study of the contribution of the teacher to the development of this understanding is presented.

Keywords

Science Education Scientific Knowledge Science Teacher Family Resemblance Explicit Approach 
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. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domain. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (Whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Allchin, D. (2012a). The minnesota case study collection: New historical inquiry case studies for nature of science education. Science & Education, 21(9), 1263–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Allchin, D. (2012b). Toward clarity on whole science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96(4), 693–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives & resources. Saint Paul, MN: SHiPS Educational Press.Google Scholar
  11. Allchin, D., Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, K. H. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science: Integrating student inquiry, historical cases, and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98(3), 461–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Alters, B. J. (1997a). Nature of science: A diversity or uniformity of ideas? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1105–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Alters, B. J. (1997b). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Implicit versus explicit nature of science instruction. An explicit response to Palmquist and Finley. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1057–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Braga, M., Guerra, A., & Reis, J. C. (2012). The role of historical-philosophical controversies in teaching sciences: The debate between Biot and Ampère. Science & Education, 21(6), 921–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cakici, Y., & Bayir, E. (2012). Developing children’s views of the nature of science through tole play. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 1075–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called Science? (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Crumb, G. H. (1965). Undertanding of science in high school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(3), 246–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Department for Education. (2014). The national curriculum in England – framework document. London, UK: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  21. Donnelly, J. (2001). Contested terrain or unified project? ‘The nature of science’ in the national curriculum for England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK/Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. E. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  25. Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education – scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Grandy, R. E., & Duschl, R. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16(2), 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  31. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  32. Hodson, D. (2014a). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hodson, D. (2014b). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Huxtable, R. J. (2002). Reflections: Fritz Haber and the ambiguity of ethics. Proceedings of the Western Pharmacology Society, 45, 1–3.Google Scholar
  35. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Justi, R., & Mendonça, P. C. C. (2014). Contributions of the discussion of a controversy related to history of science to the development of science teachers’ knowledge about science. Paper presented at the III international history, philosophy, and science teaching latin American conference, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
  38. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in sciecne education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  41. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessment? Science & Education, 7(6), 595–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Matthews, M. R. (1991). History, philosophy, and science teaching: Selected readings. Toronto, ON/New York, NY: OISE and Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  45. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York, NY/London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London, UK: King’s College, London School of Education.Google Scholar
  52. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  53. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “Ideas-about-Science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prins, G. T., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Evaluation of a design principle for fostering students’ epistemological views on models and modelling using authentic practices as contexts for learning in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(11), 1539–1569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rudge, D. W., Cassidy, D. P., Furford, J. M., & Howe, E. M. (2014). Changes observed in views of nature of science during a historically based unit. Science & Education, 23(9), 1879–1909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2006). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 331–355). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentations: A response to Allchin’s whole approach to assessing nature of science understandings. Science Education, 96(4), 687–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tolvanen, S., Jansson, J., Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. (2014). How to use historical approach to teach nature of science in chemistry education. Science & Education, 23(8), 1605–1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trent, J. (1965). The attainement of the concept “Understanding Science” using contrasting physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(3), 224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Dick, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wisniak, J. (2002). Fritz Haber – a conflicting chemist. Indian Journal of History of Science, 37(2), 153–173.Google Scholar
  67. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horses’ mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.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