Critical Design Decisions for Successful Model-Based Inquiry in Science Classrooms

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Jun 30, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i2.20137

Main Article Content

Ronald W. Rinehart
Rutgers University
Ravit Golan Duncan
Rutgers University
Clark A. Chinn
Rutgers University
Trudy A. Atkins
East Brunswick Public Schools
Jessica DiBenedetti
East Brunswick Public Schools

Abstract

Current science education reforms and the new standards (Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS], 2013) advocate that K-12 students gain proficiency in the knowledge-generating practices of scientists. These practices include argumentation, modeling, and coordinating evidence with theories and models. Practice-based instruction is very different from traditional methods. Creating practice-rich instructional materials presents substantive challenges even for experienced educational designers because of the unlimited choice of potential phenomena to study and the inherent difficulties of developing the associated models and evidence. In this design case we will discuss some of the affordances, constraints and tradeoffs associated with making decisions about four key design principles of engaging students with evidence-based scientific modeling. The first set of decisions involves identifying the focus phenomenon. The second set of decisions regards how to represent the focus phenomenon as an explanatory scientific model and how to design for student engagement with modeling. The third set of decisions involves selecting and developing the evidence students will use to evaluate models. The final set of design decisions pertains to developing supporting activities that foster disciplinary engagement (Engle & Conant, 2002) during modeling. We developed a variety of approaches that address these four design challenges and present them in the context of a unit we developed for a middle school life science course focusing on genetics and inheritance. This design case illustrates how a group of designers, including university researchers, teachers, and school administrators, arrived at collective design decisions bearing on these four problems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Rinehart, R. W., Duncan, R. G., Chinn, C. A., Atkins, T. A., & DiBenedetti, J. (2016). Critical Design Decisions for Successful Model-Based Inquiry in Science Classrooms. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i2.20137
Issue
Vol. 7 No. 2 (2016): Special Issue: K-12 Classroom Implementation
Section
K-12 Classroom Implementation

Copyright © 2023 by the International Journal of Designs for Learning, a publication of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) and Indiana University. Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page in print or the first screen in digital media. Except as otherwise noted, the content published by IJDL is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA. A simpler version of this statement is available here.

Author Biographies

Ronald W. Rinehart, Rutgers University

Department of Educational Psychology

Ph.D. Candidate

Ravit Golan Duncan, Rutgers University

Associate Professor

Department of Learning & Teaching

Clark A. Chinn, Rutgers University

Professor
Department of Educational Psychology

Trudy A. Atkins, East Brunswick Public Schools

Science Supervisor

Jessica DiBenedetti, East Brunswick Public Schools

Science Teacher

References

Allers, K., Hütter, G., Hofmann, J., Loddenkemper, C., Rieger, K., Thiel, E., & Schneider, T. (2011). Evidence for the cure of HIV infection by CCR5Δ32/Δ32 stem cell transplantation. Blood, 117(10), 2791-2799.

Berg, P., & Singer, M. (1998). Inspired choices. Science, 282(5390), 873-874.

Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163-194). Cambridge University Press

Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive science, 5(2), 121-152.

Chinn, C. A., Duschl, R. A., Duncan, R. G., Buckland, L. A., & Pluta, W. J. (2008, June). A microgenetic classroom study of learning to reason scientifically through modeling and argumentation. In ICLS’08: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for the Learning Sciences, (Vol. 3, pp. 14-15).International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press.

Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning sciences, 11(1), 105-121.

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science education, 88(6), 915-933.

Falk, A., & Brodsky, L. (2014). Scientific explanations and arguments: Accessible experiences through exploratory arguments. Science Scope, 37(5), 4-9.

Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., ... & Strijbos, J. W. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 2(3), 28-45.

Giere, R. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of science, 71(5), 742-752.

Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16(2), 141-166.

Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness—A neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10(2), 179-194.

Kanter, D. E. and Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of a project-based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices. Science Education, 94(5), 855-887. doi: 10.1002/sce.20391

King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111-126.

Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350.

Lombardi, D., Sibley, B., & Carroll, K. (2013). What’s the alternative? Using model-evidence link diagrams to weigh alternative models in argumentation. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 50-55.

Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in philosophy and education, 27(4), 283-297.

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237-256.

Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Paxton, W. A., Martin, S. R., Tse, D., O’Brien, T. R., Skurnick, J., VanDevanter, N. L., ... & Koup, R. A. (1996). Relative resistance to HIV-1 infection of CD4 lymphocytes from persons who remain uninfected despite multiple high-risk sexual exposures. Nature medicine, 2(4), 412-417.

Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1988). Students; alternative frameworks and science education bibliography. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED315266).

Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 313-319.

Pitts, V. M., & Edelson, D. C. (2004, June). Role, goal, and activity: A framework for characterizing participation and engagement in project-based learning environments. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 420-426). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Pitts, V. M., & Edelson, D. C. (2006, June). The role-goal-activity framework revisited: Examining student buy-in in a project-based learning environment. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 544-549). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486-511.

Private Universe Project. (1995). The private universe teacher workshop series [DVD]. South Burlington, VT: The Annenberg/CPB Math and Science Collection.

Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., ... & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The journal of the learning sciences, 13(3), 337-386.

Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In M. S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Rinehart, R. W., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2014). A scaffolding suite to support evidence-based modeling and argumentation. Science Scope, 38(4), 70-77.

Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-218.

Thagard, P. (2000). How scientists explain disease. Princeton University Press.

Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). ‘‘Mapping to know’’: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education 86(2), 264-286. doi: 10.1002/ sce.10004

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

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008b). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around modelbased inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310-378.

Yarden, A. (2009). Reading scientific texts: Adapting primary literature for promoting scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 307-311.