Todd Campbell Associate Professor Science Education Utah State University

1. Reification of Five Types of Modeling Pedagogies with Model-Based Inquiry (MBI) Modules for High School Science Classrooms Todd Campbell Associate Professor Science Education Utah State University

2. Presentation Overview • Introduction • What is Modeling and MBI • Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling • 5 Types of Modeling Pedagogies • Modeling Pedagogies Exemplars • Past and Future Modeling Research Questions/Discussion

3. Introduction • This presentation focuses on Modeling Research • Collaborators/Co-Authors • Dr. Phil Seok Oh-Science Educator-Visiting Scholar at Utah State University from Gyeongin National University of Education, Korea • Mr. Drew Neilson-Science Teacher-Former Masters Student & Co-Researcher • Current research presented (Invited Chapter) Campbell, T., Oh, P.S., & Neilson, D.Reification of Five Types of Modeling Pedagogies with Model-Based Inquiry (MBI) Modules for High School Science Classrooms. Next Generation Learning Science: Reform, Research and Results an edited book by Sense Publishers

4. Modeling • It has been declared that doing science is aptly described as making, using, testing, and revising models.   • Modeling has also emerged as an explicit pedagogical practice in science education reform efforts (e.g. Framework for K-12 Science Education-National Research Council [NRC], 2011) • Modeling is conceived as a central practice for science learning that can • allow “students to be themselves within a culture of scientific inquiry” (Johnston, 2008, p. 12), • support the development of explanations extracted from evidence, and • engage students in scientific argumentation through sharing, comparing, and deciding between competing models.  

5. What is the purpose of modeling and what is MBI? The purpose of modeling is to describe, explain, predict, and communicate with others a natural phenomenon, an event, or an entity. (Shen & Confrey, 2007, p. 950). Model-Based Inquiry is a process in which students “explore phenomena and construct and reconstruct models in light of the results of scientific investigations” (Oh & Oh, 2011).

6. An Example of Student Model

7. A Pathway We Have Used for MBI

8. Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling Modeling in Science • Situating modeling in science education begins to make sense by considering the roles modeling plays in the work of scientists. • In science, models serve to describe,explain, and predict natural phenomena and communicate scientific ideas to others (Buckley & Boulter, 2000; Oh & Oh, 2011; Shen & Confrey, 2007).

9. Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling Modeling in Science Examples in the work of Scientists • Gilbert, Boulter, and Rutherford (1998) shared how Newton used a model of white light composed heterogeneously of colors to enable a full range of explanations surrounding the behavior of light. • Justiand Gilbert (1999) also provided evidence of how and when scientists used models and modeling as ideas about chemical kinetics evolved and became more sophisticated.

10. Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling It can be seen that models help bridge the gap between observed phenomena and theoretical ideas about why those phenomena occur (Morrison & Morgan, 1999; Oh & Oh, 2011). Modeling in Science Education The same principle applies to science learning: using models in science classrooms is beneficial because models support constructing and reasoning with students’ mental models.

11. Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling Modeling in Science Education Examples • Gobert and colleagues (Gobert, 2005; Gobert & Clement, 1999; Gobert & Pallant, 2004) showed, for example, that the process of modeling the interior of the earth and its dynamic movements was helpful both for enhancing students’ understanding of the spatial and causal aspects of plate tectonics and for fostering their perceptions of the nature of models.

12. Literature Supportive of Investigations in Modeling Modeling in Science Education Examples Cont. • Penner, Lehrer, and Schauble (1998) engaged third-grade children in building, testing, and revising models of the human elbows and found that with modeling even young students better understood the mechanics of the human body. Modeling in Science Teacher Education • In addition, models and modeling have shown their promises in science teacher education programs as well (Akerson et al., 2009; Schwarz & Gwekwerere, 2007; Schwarz & White, 2005; Windschitl & Thompson, 2006).  

13. Current State and Gaps • A Conceptual Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2011) suggests, “Modeling can begin in the earliest grades, with students’ models progressing from concrete ‘pictures’ and/or physical scale models … to more abstract representations of relevant relationships in later grades” (p. 3-9).   • However, it has been reported consistently that model-based teaching is not widely implemented in schools and that, when implemented, it is likely missing some important aspects of scientific modeling (Khan, 2011).  

14. Timeliness of Research • In agreement with Louca et al. (in press), we recognized the need of a project to provide teachers with conceptual, as well as practical guidance that helps them apply scientific modeling successfully in their classrooms. • Such a project was actually realized thanks to the recent proposal of five modeling pedagogies (Oh & Oh, 2011). • This work continues Oh & Oh’s (2011) work by further developing the five pedagogies by examining these five practices actualized in classrooms to offer practical guidance for applying scientific modeling successfully in classrooms.  

15. Five Modeling Pedagogies

16. 5 Modeling Pedagogies It should be emphasized that the five modeling pedagogies are not exclusive to each other, as two or more modeling activities can be combined to address a single science topic. As an example, students may learn both geocentric and heliocentric models of celestial motions by exploratory modeling (e.g., they can change planet positions in computer models and see how the planets are observed from the earth) and then participate in evaluative modeling to select an adequate model explaining a certain astronomical phenomenon (e.g., phase change of Venus).  

17. Authors Collaboration Our collaboration is described as continuous effort to explore and build up model-based inquiry (MBI) in high school science classrooms.

19. Modeling in Mr. Neilson’s Classes • Generally speaking, Mr. Neilson’s physics lessons are structured in a cyclic modeling frame.   • That is, in his high school science classrooms, students are given opportunities to develop models to explain scientific phenomena, design investigations to test their models, and revisit their models for improvement.   • This instructional cycle involves central facets of all the five modeling pedagogies, even if some may be emphasized more explicitly than others in a certain module.  

20. Modeling in Mr. Neilson’s Classes • We have provided the effectiveness of Mr. Neilson’s MBI instruction in other research reports (Campbell, Zhang, & Neilson, 2010). • More data has recently been collected from Mr. Neilson’s classrooms in the form of video-recordings. • This data contains four science lessons from two different classes in which the Electrostatic Energy module was applied (see Campbell & Neilson, in press for additional details about the Electrostatic Energy module).

21. Modeling in Mr. Neilson’s Classes • In this research, these videotapes, as well as documentation of the other modeling modules were analyzed to reveal how Mr. Neilson has facilitated modeling for his students. • This will help reify the five modeling pedagogies so that teachers of science can be offered informed practical guidance for better modeling instruction.

22. Modeling Pedagogies in Practice: Electrostatic Energy Module • From the electrostatic energy module, it was revealed that Mr. Neilson’s students were engaged in expressive modelingfor a fairly long period of time.   • The task assigned to the students was to create models with which they could explain some phenomena about static electricity. • To trigger student modeling, Mr. Neilson provided science demonstrations related to static electricity and allowed the students to suggest new demonstrations by changing variables.

24. Expressive Modeling • The electrostatic phenomena demonstrated by Mr. Neilson became the subjects to be explained through expressive modeling by students.   • However, Mr. Neilson did not merely ask students to come up with models.  Instead, he first emphasized that one purpose of scientific modeling is to explain phenomena. • On several occasions during his demonstration, Mr. Neilson stated, for example, “You’re going to be creating your model.  Remember, your model should explain why you’re seeing what’s happening, as well as what’s really happening” or simply, “Your model should explain these phenomena.”

25. Expressive Modeling • Mr. Neilson presented scientific models so that his students would base their models on the canonical or normative knowledge of science.   • The static electricity phenomena studied in Mr. Neilson’s classroom were those that are fundamentally explained by scientific ideas of electrons and their interactions with other electrons, subatomic particles and materials. • Therefore, the teacher consistently reminded the students to connect their models to what scientists know about the atomic structure and the movement of electrons.

26. Mr. Neilson: We talked yesterday about the atom, that in the nucleus the charges that are there are what? • Student: Positive. • Mr. Neilson: What, positive charges?  What else is in the nucleus? • Student: Neutrons. • Mr. Neilson: Electrons are on the outside. … Would you say they have more protons than electrons, more electrons than protons or equal numbers generally, • Student: Equal. • Mr. Neilson:   Equal numbers.  What do we call that situation? • Student:   Neutral. • Mr. Neilson: Neutral, right.  Is that what you said? • Student: Yeah, I said stable. • Mr. Neilson: Yeah, stable. … That’s what atoms are.  To really explain what’s happening here you might have to look at this model of atoms.  That’s what I mean by looking at small (details?).  You might actually have to talk about these things.

27. Expressive Modeling • In the excerpt, Mr. Neilson’s last utterance demonstrates how he reveals his desire for students to stay close to the scientific ideas about electrons and use them in generating their own models.   • It should also be noted that Mr. Neilson encouraged students to express their models in alternative forms of representation, rather than writing out lengthy explanations.  

28. Expressive Modeling Cont. • He told students repeatedly, “draw your model” , “illustrate that”, and contended, “picture and diagrams are much better than a bunch of words.”  He also indicated as well, “the purpose of this model [is] … visualize”, and frequently referred to a model as “mental picture” or “your vision”.   • The models represented with various semiotic resources, such as diagrams, graphs, and three-dimensional figures.  This multiple modality enables a model to fulfill its functions of describing complicated phenomena and communicating abstract ideas (Oh & Oh, 2011).  

29. Experimental Modeling • Mr. Neilson’s expressive modeling was followed by experimental modelingin which students were to “try and test” their models.  By “try and test” Mr. Neilson meant various ways to “see if we can recreate” target phenomena using models and find “evidence” to adjust the models.  

30. Experimental Modeling • In a class, he explained: The cool thing about your model is, if it makes sense to you right now, then that’s what ought to go down.  As long as you can tell me why …, that’s the starting point.  Then, what we’ll do is, we’ll do some tests and see if we can recreate that.  If we recreate it, then we’ve given some evidence to support your contention. … We found evidence, and then we adjusted our model accordingly.

31. Experimental Modeling • As a student suggested that there might be different charges involved when a rod was rubbed with silk or fur, the teacher asked reflectively, “Is it conclusive that there’s two different charges?” He then engaged the whole class in an experiment with an electroscope to further investigate the student’s idea.  

32. Experimental Modeling • Also, when students came up with different models to explain why two leaves of an electroscope pushed apart and came back together with charged rods touching the top of the electroscope, he accepted all the ideas regardless of their accuracy and suggested, “We could test any of these theories out”.  Consequently, much of the classes that were observed was spent with conducting new experiments suggested by students as they “tr[ied] and test[ed]” their models. • The explicit purpose of Mr. Neilson’s experimental modeling was to validate student models and generate evidence to be used for improving the models.

33. Cyclic Modeling • In Mr. Neilson’s physics classrooms, expressive and experimental modeling developed further into cyclic modeling.   • The purpose of the cyclic modeling was to provide students with continuous opportunities to test their models, collect more evidence, and improve models by pondering the evidence.

34. Cyclic Modeling • Mr. Neilson explained the rationale of the cyclic modeling to his students: What are we gonna be doing with your models as you learn more?  Yeah, changing them.  I don’t like the word fixingem’.  That implies you guys made a mistake.  As you get more evidence, you modify it.  You make changes to it.  There’s no right answer in science.  We arrive at an answer, and then maybe new evidence shows up, and we don’t like that answer anymore, and we change it. • We see this reflecting Mr. Neilson’s understanding of an essential aspect of scientific models: models in science are subject to empirical and theoretical tests and revisable as a consequence of those tests (Oh & Oh, 2011).   • It is also important for students to understand the tentative nature of scientific models, if they are to learn science by exercising scientific practices.

35. Cyclic Modeling • Mr. Neilson’s cycling modeling resulted in progressions of student understanding of static electricity and their models about it.   • Part A (Next Slide) is a student’s initial model, where he explains an electrostatic phenomenon with the difference in size of atoms between an insulator and conductor.   • In his modified model, Part B (Next Slide), however, the same student constructed his explanations using the idea of the movement of electrons.   • Notably, his new model is not only scientifically valid, but also able to explain more phenomena related to static electricity.

36. Initial Student Model

37. Refined Student Model

38. Exploratory & Evaluative Modeling • The energy module did not include evidence of the use of exploratory and evaluative modeling. • When we considered the other modules and our additional collaborating experiences throughout the year, however, it was revealed that the exploratory modelingwas applied as well in Mr. Neilson’s physics classrooms. For example, in teaching about centripetal force, Mr. Neilson introduced a model airplane tied to a string and connected to a force probe to allow students to explore several properties of the teacher-created model and see how changes to the model influenced these properties.

39. Exploratory & Evaluative Modeling • When we look further into whether the evaluative modelingwas used in the other modules implemented throughout the year, a similar pattern as in the Electrostatic Energy module was found: evaluating models was generally connected to the experimental modeling that played a more central role in Mr. Neilson’s classrooms. • The model evaluation did occur as students were engaged in investigations to determine how the data fit with their current models, but little time was devoted to students assessing alternative models or selecting between competing models either presented by the teacher or developed by their peers.  

40. Conclusion • It is commonly recognized in the science education community that modeling is a significant part of science and should also be applied to students learning of science in schools. • This research sheds light on the importance of understanding ways scientific modeling can be translated into classroom practices.

41. Conclusion • We have used this research to reify five modeling pedagogies using MBI modules developed and implemented through collaborations between science education researchers and a high school physics teacher. • The modeling pedagogies explicated here can be used as frameworks for teachers to select and organize student activities in ways that are consistent with intellectual practices of scientists and consequently, recent reform in science education.

42. Looking Ahead • Examining Discourse Modes within Modeling Classrooms Oh, P. S. & Campbell, T. Understanding of Science Classrooms in Different Countries through the Analysis of Discourse Modes for Building 'Classroom Science Knowledge' (CSK). (Submitted November 16, 2011).

43. Looking Ahead • Examining Argumentation and Explanation within Modeling Planned Literature Review with Dr. Oh and two Graduate Students Spring 2012

44. Looking Ahead • Refining and Developing Additional Modeling Modules with Mr. Neilson Spring 2012 Evaluative Modeling in Buoyancy Modeling Energy and Heat Transfer Module

45. References & Chapter • Please email todd.campbell@usu.edu THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SHARE!