Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Science Teaching and Learning for Productive Disciplinary Engagement (PDE) through Model-Based Learning (MBL): Insights from Relevant Literature

  • Received : 2022.08.01
  • Accepted : 2022.08.30
  • Published : 2022.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The practice turn in the science education community emphasizes students' engagement in the activities that scientists and engineers actually do when they see, explain, and critique a phenomenon, or solve a problem. This turn highlights the importance of science learning environments for students. Consequently, the purpose of this study was the examination of relevant literature with the aim of proposing theoretically and empirically derived teaching strategies for students' productive disciplinary engagement (PDE) through model-based learning (MBL) in science classrooms. To this end, collected literature focusing on PDE and MBL was analyzed to better understand 1) how teachers can foster students' PDE in science classrooms, 2) how PDE can be connected to MBL, and 3) what supports are required for students' PDE through MBL. As a result of our analysis, a close relationship between PDE and MBL was identified. Importantly, this research reveals the promise of MBL for supporting students' PDE through the problematizing, authority, accountability, and resources. Further, our literature examination provided a better understanding of what supports are required for students' engagement in PDE through MBL and why this matters in the context of the practice turn in science education.

Keywords

References

  1. Amade-Escot, C., and Bennour, N. (2017). Productive disciplinary engagement within didactical transactions: A case study of student learning in gymnastics. European Physical Education Review, 23(3), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X16633072
  2. Ambitious Science Teaching. (2015a). Guide face to face tools: Making changes in student thinking visible over time. http://ambitiousscienceteaching.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Guide-Face-to-Face-Tools.pdf
  3. Ambitious Science Teaching. (2015b). Models and modeling: An introduction. http://ambitiousscienceteaching.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Models-and-Modeling-An-Introduction1.pdf
  4. Bybee, R., and Chopyak, C. (2017). Instructional materials and implementation of next generation science standards: Demand, supply, and strategic opportunities. A report for carnegie corporation of New York. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
  5. Campbell, T., and Fazio, X. (2018). Epistemic frames as an analytical framework for understanding the representation of scientific activity in a modeling-based learning unit. Research in Science Education, 50, 2283-2304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9779-7
  6. Campbell, T., and Oh, P. S. (2015). Engaging students in modeling as an epistemic practice of science: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 125-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9544-2
  7. Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., and Neilson, D. (2012). Discursive modes and their pedagogical functions in model-based inquiry (MBI) classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2393-2419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.704552
  8. Campbell, T., Schwarz, C., and Windschitl, M. (2016). What we call misconceptions may be necessary stepping-stones on a path towards making sense of the world. The Science Teacher, 83(3), 28-33.
  9. Chen, Y. C. (2020). Dialogic pathways to manage uncertainty for productive engagement in scientific argumentation. Science & Education, 29, 331-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00111-z
  10. Cho, H. S. and Nam J. (2017). Analysis of trends of model and modeling-related research in science education in korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(4), 539-552. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.4.539
  11. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416901
  12. Dasgupta, C. (2019). Improvable models as scaffolds for promoting productive disciplinary engagement in an engineering design activity. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(3), 394-417. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20282
  13. Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J., and Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 127-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701
  14. Elgin, C. Z. (2013). Epistemic agency. Theory and Research in Education, 11(2), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878513485173
  15. Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161-200). Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.
  16. Engle, R. A., and 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
  17. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
  18. Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing "practice" to describe science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041-1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188
  19. Ford, M. J., and Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001001
  20. Forman, E. A. (2018). The practice turn in learning theory and science education. In D. W. Kritt (Ed.), Constructivist education in an age of accountability (pp. 97-111). Palgrave Macmillan.
  21. Forman, E. A., and Ford, M. J. (2014). Authority and accountability in light of disciplinary practices in science. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.009
  22. Freedman, E. B. (2020). When discussions sputter or take flight: Comparing productive disciplinary engagement in two history classes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(3), 385-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1744442
  23. Gouvea, J., and Passmore, C. (2017). 'Models of' versus 'models for'. Science & Education, 26(1-2), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9884-4
  24. Grimes, P., McDonald, S., and van Kampen, P. (2019). "We're getting somewhere": Development and implementation of a framework for the analysis of productive science discourse. Science Education, 103(1), 5-36.
  25. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., and 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280907
  26. Guy-Gaytan, C., Gouvea, J. S., Griesemer, C., and Passmore, C. (2019). Tensions between learning models and engaging in modeling. Science & Education, 28, 843-864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00064-y
  27. Kawasaki, J., and Sandoval, W. A. (2019). The role of teacher framing in producing coherent NGSS-aligned teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(8), 906-922. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1657765
  28. Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., and Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling. Science and Children, 46(2), 40-44.
  29. Kim, S. A., Yoon, M. B., and Kim, H. S. (2010). Conceptual changes on geocentricism of middle school students using the phase model of the Venus. Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.21796/JSE.2010.34.1.47
  30. Knight-Bardsley, A. M., and McNeill, K. L. (2016). Teachers' pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation. Science Education, 100(4), 645-672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21222
  31. Koretsky, M. D., Vauras, M., Jones, C., Iiskala, T., and Volet, S. (2019). Productive disciplinary engagement in high-and low-outcome student groups: Observations from three collaborative science learning contexts. Research in Science Education, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9838-8
  32. Louca, L. T., and Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.628748
  33. Meyer, X. (2014). Productive disciplinary engagement as a recursive process: Initial engagement in a scientific investigation as a resource for deeper engagement in the scientific discipline. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 184-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.002
  34. Mortimer, E. F., and de Araujo, A. O. (2014). Using productive disciplinary engagement and epistemic practices to evaluate a traditional Brazilian high school chemistry classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 156-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.004
  35. Neilson, D., and Campbell, T. (2017). Modeling as an anchoring scientific practice for explaining friction phenomena. The Physics Teacher, 55(9), 570-574. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5011837
  36. Nunez-Oviedo, M. C., and Clement, J. J. (2019). Large scale scientific modeling practices that can organize science instruction at the unit and lesson levels. Frontiers in Education, 4(68), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00001
  37. Oh, P. S., Jon, W. S., and Yoo, J. (2007). Analysis of Scientific Models in the Earth Domain of the 10th Grade science Textbooks. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 28(4), 393-404. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2007.28.4.393
  38. Oh, P. S., and Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109-1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191
  39. Park, B-Y., Rodriguez, L, and Campbell, T. (2019, November 01). Using models to teach science. The Science Teacher, 87(4), 8-11.
  40. Passmore, C., Gouvea, J. S., and Giere, R. (2014). Models in science and in learning science: Focusing scientific practice on sense-making. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1171-1202). Springer.
  41. Passmore, C. M., and Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535-1554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.577842
  42. Russ, R. S., and Berland, L. K. (2019). Invented science: A framework for discussing a persistent problem of practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(3), 279-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1517354
  43. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., and Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
  44. Schwarz, C. V., and White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
  45. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., and Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631.
  46. Song, J., Kang, S. J., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Kim, S., Na, J., ... and Joung, Y. J. (2019). Contents and features of 'Korean Science Education Standards (KSES)' for the next generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 465-478. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.3.465
  47. Suarez, E. (2020). "Estoy explorando science": Emergent bilingual students problematizing electrical phenomena through translanguaging. Science Education, 104(5), 791-826. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21588
  48. Svoboda, J., and Passmore, C. (2010). Evaluating a modeling curriculum by using heuristics for productive disciplinary engagement. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(3), 266-276. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0037
  49. Svoboda, J., and Passmore, C. (2013). The strategies of modeling in biology education. Science & Education, 22(1), 119-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9425-5
  50. Venturini, P., and Amade-Escot, C. (2014). Analysis of conditions leading to a productive disciplinary engagement during a physics lesson in a disadvantaged area school. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 170-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.003
  51. White, B. Y., and Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
  52. Windschitl, M., and Calabrese Barton, A. (2016). Rigor and equity by design: Seeking a core of practices for the science education community. In C. Bell, and D. Gitomer. (Eds.), AERA handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 1099-1158). AERA Press.
  53. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., and 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259
  54. Zangori, L., and Forbes, C. T. (2016). Development of an empirically based learning performances framework for third-grade students' model-based explanations about plant processes. Science Education, 100(6), 961-982. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21238
  55. Zangori, L., Peel, A., Kinslow, A., Friedrichsen, P., and Sadler, T. D. (2017). Student development of model-based reasoning about carbon cycling and climate change in a socio-scientific issues unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1249-1273. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21404