Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.2.0135

Criteria for Evaluating Scientific Models Used by Pre-service Elementary Teachers  

Oh, Phil Seok (Gyeongin National University of Education)
Lee, Jung Sook (Yonsei University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.34, no.2, 2014 , pp. 135-146 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore evaluation criteria that pre-service elementary teachers employ as they evaluate and select models to explain electric circuits. Thirty junior students in a university of education have participated in the study as a part of the science education course in which they were enrolled. The lessons for the participants have been organized as a cyclic sequence of different modeling pedagogies including the expressive, experimental, and evaluative modeling. The pre-service teachers have been given five electric circuits in order and asked to create models and further develop them through peer discussion. Their modeling activities have been video- or audio-recorded, and the recordings and their transcripts have been analyzed using a framework of model evaluation criteria. It reveals that the types and frequencies of evaluation criteria used are different between situations of model development and model selection. While empirical and theoretical criteria have been used dominantly in both situations, more various criteria have been employed in the situation where the pre-service teachers selected one model among alternatives. Implications for science education and science education research have been suggested.
Keywords
scientific model; model evaluation; modeling pedagogies; evaluation criteria; elementary science; pre-service teacher;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011a). A study on the processes of elaborating hypotheses in abductive inquiry of preservice elementary school teachers. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(1), 128-142.   과학기술학회마을
2 Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011b). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109-1130.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2013, September). Modeling sunspots: How Korean high school students used two types of modeling in their study of the Sun. The Science Teacher, 80(6), 51-56.
4 Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627-638.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Passmore, C. M., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modeling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535-1554.   DOI
6 Parnafes, O. (2012). Developing explanations and developing understanding: Students explains the phases of the moon using visual representations. Cognition and Instruction, 30(4), 359-403.   DOI
7 Cavagnetto, A. (2011, September). The multiple faces of argument in school science. Science Scope, 35(1), 34-37.
8 Chauvire, C. (2005). Peirce, Popper, abduction, and the idea of a logic of discovery. Semiotica, 153(1-4), 209-221.
9 Clark, D. B., & Sengupta, P. (2013). Argumentation and modeling: Integrating the products and practices of science to improve science education. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Approaches and strategies in next generation science learning (pp. 85-105). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
10 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
11 Hodson, D. (2001). Inclusion without assimilation: Science education from an anthropological and metacognitive perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(2), 161-182.
12 Kordig, C. R. (1978). Discovery and justification. Philosophy of Science, 45, 110-117.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Kuhn, T. (1974). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In T. Kuhn, The essential tension: Selected studies in the scientific traditon and change (pp. 320-339). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
14 Lee, S., Kim, C.-J., Choe, S.-U., Yoo, J., Park, H., Kang, H., & Kim, H.-B. (2012). Exploring the patterns of group model development about blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group interaction. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 805-822.   과학기술학회마을
15 McDermott. L. C., Shaffer. P. S., & The Physics Education Group at the University of Washington (2002). Tutorials in introductory physics. Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16 Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639-669.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Brewer, W., Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (1998). Explanation in scientists and children. Minds and Machines, 8, 119-136.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the nature and 'goodness' of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573-605.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Bottcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science & Education, 20, 103-140.   DOI
20 Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.
21 Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., & Neilson, D. (2012). Discursive modes and their pedagogical functions in model-based inquiry (MBI) classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2393-2419.   DOI
22 Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., & Neilson, D. (2013). Reification of five types of modeling pedagogies with model-based inquiry (MBI) modules for high school science classrooms. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Approaches and strategies in next generation science learning (pp. 106-126). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
23 Cagagnetto, A. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 336-371.
24 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95, 217-257.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Sutton, C. (1996). The scientific model as a form of speech. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 143-152). London, UK: The Falmer Press.
27 Thagard, P. (1978). The best explanation: Criteria for theory choice. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(2), 76-92.   DOI
28 Thagard, P. (2012). The cognitive science of science: Explanation, discovery, and conceptual change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
29 Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30 Samarapungavan, A. (1992). Children's judgments in theory choice tasks: Scientific rationality in childhood. Cognition, 45, 1-32.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
32 Nelson, M. M., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Preservice elementary teachers' evaluations of elementary students' scientific models: An aspect of pedagogical content knowledge for scientific modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1931-1959.   DOI
33 Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students' argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371-393.   DOI