Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2014.7.1.043

A case study on the conceptual simulation observed in explanation of elementary school students about the causes of the seasonal change  

Ko, Min-Seok (Korea National University of Education)
Kim, Na-Young (Korea National University of Education)
Yang, Il-Ho (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education / v.7, no.1, 2014 , pp. 43-53 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze the conceptual simulation observed when students are thinking about the causes of the seasonal change, identifying how students come up with the explanation. For this study, a framework for conceptual simulation process and strategy based on literary research was developed and its validity was proved by four experts in the field of science education. The results were as in the following: First, through the process of explaining the causes for seasonal change, students usually base their explanation on perceptual experience learned from model experiments from a science class. Besides, construct of thought experiment using the familiar object or analogize of the familiar perceptual experience. These all contributed to on explanation firmly. Second, errors from mental simulation were found in the statement of initial representation and running imagistic simulation. It happened when statement of initial representation is not in a complete and secure state or when participants think of an inappropriate situation during running imagistic simulation. Third, the study identified that the use of strategies like 'removal' and 'replace' was shown to enhance the effects of conceptual simulation particularly in regard with solar attitude at meridian passage.
Keywords
conceptual simulation; thought experiment; the causes of the seasonal change;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Gilbert, J., & Reiner, M. (2000). Thought experiments in science education: potential and current realization. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 265-283.   DOI
2 Kastens, K., & Rivet, A. (2008). Multiple modes of inquiry in earth science. The Science Teacher, 75(1), 26-31.
3 Gobert, J. D., & Buckly, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Griffith, T. W., Nersessian, N. J., & Goel, A. (2000). Function-follows-form transformations in scientific problem solving. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 22, 196-201. Mahwah, N. J. : Lawrence Erlbaum.
5 Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Mazor, E. (1997). Software for assisting high school students in the spatial perception of geological structures, Journal of Geoscience Education, 45(1), 10-21.   DOI
6 Katz, R., Ragnarsson, R., & Bodenschatz, E. (2005). Tectonic microplates in a wax model of sea-floor spreading. New Journal of Physics, 7, (37), doi:10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/037   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Khan, S. (2008). What if scenarios for testing student models in chemistry. In J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (Ch. 8, pp. 139-150). Dordrecht: Springer.
8 Kim, Soon-sick. (2012). The study of elementary preservice teacher's classes on seasonal variation. Journal of the Korean society of earth science education, 5(3), 245-255.   과학기술학회마을
9 Ko, Min-seok., & Yang, Il-ho. (2013). Analysis on the relationship between the construct level of analogical reasoning and the construction of explanatory model observed in small group discussions on scientific problem solving. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(2), 522-537.   과학기술학회마을   DOI
10 Lightman, A. & Sadler, P. M. (1993) Teacher Predictions versus Actual Student Gains. The Physics Teacher, 31(3), 162-167.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Libarkin, J. C., Beilfus, M., & Kurdziel, J. P. (2003). Research methodologies in science education: Mental models and cognition in education. Journal of geoscience education, 51(1), 121-126.
12 Moulton, S. T., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2009). Imagining predictions: mental imagery as mental emulation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 364(1521), 1273-1280.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Mental modeling in conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Interntional handbook of conceptual change (pp. 391-416). New York: Routledge.
14 Reiner, M., & Burko, L. (2003). On the limitations of thought experiments in physics and the consequences for physics education. Science and Education, 12(4), 385-358.
15 Nersessian, N. J. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? model-based simulation in biomedical engineering research laboratories. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 1-28.   DOI
16 Nersessian, N. J., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2009). Hybrid analogies in conceptual innovation in science. Cognitive Systems Research, 10(3), 178-188.   DOI
17 Orion, N., BenChaim, D., & Kali, Y. (1997). Relationship between earth-science education and spatial visualization, Journal of Geoscience Education, 45, 129-132.   DOI
18 Trafton, J. G., Trickett, S. B., & Mintz, F. (2005). Connecting internal and external representations: Spatial transformations of scientific visualizations. Foundations of Science, 10(1), 89-106.   DOI
19 Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Stephens, L., & Clement, J. (2010) Documenting the use of expert scientific reasoning process by high school physics students. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), URL: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020122.
21 Trickett, S., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). The instantiation and use of conceptual simulations in evaluating hypotheses: movies in the mind in scientific reasoning. Peoceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ.
22 Trickett, S. B., & Trafton, J. G. (2007). "What if${\cdots}$": The use of conceptual simulations in scientific reasoning, Cognitive Science, 31(5), 843-875.   DOI
23 Trickett, S. B., Trafton, J. G., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). How do scientists respond to anomalies? different strategies used in basic and applied science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 711-729.   DOI
24 Zeilik, M., & Bisard, W. J. 2000, Conceptual Change in Introductory-Level Astronomy Courses, Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(4), 229-232.p
25 Chae, Dong-hyun. (2011). The investigation of dix grade students' preconceptions about the cause of seasonal change. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 30(2), 204-212.
26 Clement, J. (2000). Model-based learning as a key research area of science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Ball, L. J., & Christensen, B. T. (2009). Analogical reasoning and mental simulation in design: Two strategies linked to uncertainty resolution. Design Studies, 30(2), 169-186.   DOI
28 Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Clement, J. (2003). Imagistic simulation in scientific model construction. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 25. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30 Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.
31 Clement, J. (2009). The role of imagistic simulation in scientific thought experiments. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 686-710.   DOI
32 Galili, I. (2009). Thought Experiments: Determining Their Meaning. science &Education, 18(1), 1-23.