Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Models and Modeling pp 41–76Cite as

The Nature of Scientific Meta-Knowledge

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Models and Modeling in Science Education ((MMSE,volume 6))

Abstract

We argue that science education should focus on enabling students to develop meta-knowledge about science so that students come to understand how different aspects of the scientific enterprise work together to create and test scientific theories. Furthermore, we advocate that teaching such meta-knowledge should begin in early elementary school and continue through college and graduate school and that it should be taught for all types of science, including the biological, physical, and social sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science . (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2016. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K. & Collins, A. (2000). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth, (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models, Vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borge, M. (2007). Regulating social interactions: Developing a functional theory of collaboration. Doctoral dissertation, Berkeley, CA : University of California at Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic reasoning in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies for guiding inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2002a). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2002b). Students’ criteria for representational adequacy. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, & L. Verschaffel, (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 105–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Naïve competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, K. (1999). How scientists build models: InVivo science as a window on the scientific mind. In L. Magnani, N. Nersessian, & P. Thagard, (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 85–99). New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In M. Jiménez-Aleixandre & S. Erduran, (Eds), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eslinger, E., White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Brobst, J. (2008). Supporting inquiry processes with an interactive learning environment: Inquiry Island. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, J. R. & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, J. R. & White, B. Y. (2002). Conceptualizing and constructing linked models: Creating coherence in complex knowledge systems. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 69–96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, J. R., White, B. Y., & Gutwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 806–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, J. R., White, B. Y., Li, M., Herrenkohl, L. R., & Shimoda, T. (2008). Classroom formative assessment: Investigating models for evaluating the learning of scientific inquiry (Final report to the National Science Foundation). University of Washington: available from the authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Giere, (ed.). (1992). Cognitive models of science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grotzer, T. A. (2003). Learning to understand the forms of causality implicit in scientific explanations. Studies in Science Education, 39, 1–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modeling theory in science education. Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., Russ, R., Mileska, J., & Scherr, R. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students’ abilities. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.) , Establishing a consensus agenda for K-12 science inquiry. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrenkohl, L. R., Palinscar, A., Dewater, L., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 451–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics knowledge. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • High Performance Systems. (2000). Stella 6. [software retrievable from http://www.iseesystems.com/. Accessed 5 January, 2011]. Hanover, NH: High Performance Systems.

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1085–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D. & Simon, H. A. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 524–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. (1998). Educational and social science research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in elementary grades. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock, (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R. & Shauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser, (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 5. Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 101–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1994). Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology-based learning environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellar, H., Bliss, J., Boohan, R., Ogborn, J., & Tompsett, C. (Eds.). (1994). Learning with artificial worlds: Computer based modeling in the curriculum. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (2000). Young children’s inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 371–404). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2007). In R. Duschl, A. Schweingruber, & A. Shouse (Eds.), Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, & H. Eijkelhof, (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education. Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2005). Dimensions of causal understanding: The role of complex causal models in students’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 41(1), 117–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repenning, A., Ioannidou, A., & Zola, J. (2000). AgentSheets: End-user programmable simulations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. J. & Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. & White, B. (2005). Meta-modeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimoda, T., White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2002). Student reflective inquiry: Increasing levels of agency through modifiable software advisors. Science Education, 86, 244–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J., & Chi, M. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 221–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan, & J. D. Bransford, (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515–565). Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. (1995). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. In J. L. Schnase, & E. L. Cunnius, (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL ‘95: The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 341–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 99–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y. & Frederiksen, J. R. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Collins, A. (2009). The interplay of scientific inquiry and metacognition: More than a marriage of convenience. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser, (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B., Frederiksen, J., Frederiksen, T., Eslinger, E., Loper, S., & Collins, A. (2003). Inquiry Island: Affordances of a multi-agent environment for scientific inquiry and reflective learning. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz, (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B., Shimoda, T., & Frederiksen, J. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2), 151–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. [software retrievable from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Accessed 5 January, 2011]. Center for connected learning and computer’ based modeling. Northwestern University.

  • Wilensky, U. & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded in part by the National Science Foundation (grants MDR-9154433, REC-0087583, and REC-0337753). We thank the members of our research team for their contributions to this work, as well as the students and teachers who participated in our studies. The views expressed in this chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720-8099, USA

    Barbara Y. White

  2. School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Allan Collins

  3. University of Washington, Washington, USA

    John R. Frederiksen

Authors
  1. Barbara Y. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allan Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John R. Frederiksen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Y. White .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bahrain Teachers College, Manama, Bahrain

    Myint Swe Khine

  2. Bahrain Teachers College, Manama, Bahrain

    Issa M. Saleh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

White, B.Y., Collins, A., Frederiksen, J.R. (2011). The Nature of Scientific Meta-Knowledge. In: Khine, M., Saleh, I. (eds) Models and Modeling. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0449-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation