Should students design or interact with models? Using the Bifocal Modelling Framework to investigate model construction in high school science

References

• Blikstein, P. (2010). Connecting the science classroom and tangible interfaces: The bifocal modeling framework. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences, ICLS 2012 (pp. 128–130), Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Blikstein, P. (2012). Bifocal modeling: A study on the learning outcomes of comparing physical and computational models linked in real time. Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction ICMI 2012 (pp. 257–264), Santa Monica, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Blikstein, P. (2014). Bifocal modeling: Comparing physical and computational models linked in real time. In A. Nijholt (Ed.), Playful learning interfaces (pp. 317–350). Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Blikstein, P., Fuhrmann, T., Greene, D., & Salehi, S. (2012, June). Bifocal modeling: Mixing real and virtual labs for advanced science learning. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 296–299). Bremen: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2006, July). The missing link: A case study of sensing-and-modeling toolkits for constructionist scientific investigation. Sixth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT'06) (pp. 980–982). Washington, DC: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Bifocal modeling: A framework for combining computer modeling, robotics and real-world sensing. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2007), Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Blikstein, P. (2012). Bifocal modeling: a study on the learning outcomes of comparing physical and computational models linked in real time. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI), Santa Monica, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Bryce, C. M., Baliga, V. B., Nesnera, K. L. D., Fiack, D., Goetz, K., Tarjan, L. M., … Ash, D. (2016). Exploring models in the biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 78(1), 35–42. doi: 10.1525/abt.2016.78.1.35
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, M. F., Lin, J. L., Chang, Y. C., Li, H. W., Wu, T. Y., & Lin, D. M. (2014). Developing explanatory models of magnetic phenomena through model-based inquiry. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(3), 351–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu, M. H., & Lin, J. W. (2005). Promoting fourth graders’ conceptual change of their understanding of electric current via multiple analogies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 429–464. doi: 10.1002/tea.20062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041–1053. doi: 10.1080/095006900416901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrmann, T., Greene, D., Salehi, S., & Blikstein, P. (2012). Bifocal biology: The link between real and virtual experiments. Proceedings of the constructionism 2012 conference, Athens.
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrmann, T., Salehi, S., & Blikstein, P. (2014). A tale of two worlds: Using bifocal modeling to find and resolve ‘discrepant events’ between physical experiments and virtual models in biology. Proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2014), Madison, WI.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education (Vol. 9). Cham: Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Halloun, I. A. (2011). From modeling schemata to the profiling schema: Modeling across the curricula for profile shaping education. In Models and modeling (pp. 77–96). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hokayem, H., & Schwarz, C. (2014). Engaging fifth graders in scientific modeling to learn about evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 49–72. doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9395-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, N. G., Wieman, C. E., & Bonn, D. A. (2015). Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(36), 11199–11204. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1505329112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koponen, I. T. (2007). Models and modelling in physics education: A critical re-analysis of philosophical underpinnings and suggestions for revisions. Science & Education, 16(7), 751–773. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9000-7
   Google Scholar
• Krell, M., Zu Belzen, A. U., & Krüger, D. (2014). Students’ levels of understanding models and modelling in biology: Global or aspect-dependent? Research in Science Education, 44(1), 109–132. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9365-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153–196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, J. W., & Chiu, M. H.. (2010). The mismatch between students’ mental models of acids/bases and their sources and their teacher’s anticipations thereof. Journal of Science Education, 32(12), 1617–1646. doi: 10.1080/09500690903173643
   Google Scholar
• Moore, E. B., Chamberlain, J. M., Parson, R., & Perkins, K. K. (2014). PhET interactive simulations: Transformative tools for teaching chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1191–1197. doi: 10.1021/ed4005084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2013). Developing assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Odom, A. L. (1995). Secondary & college biology students' misconceptions about diffusion & osmosis. The American Biology Teacher, 57(7), 409–415. doi: 10.2307/4450030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51–66. doi: 10.1023/B:JOST.0000019638.01800.d0
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• PhET. Free online physics, chemistry, biology, earth science and math simulations. Retrieved from http://phet.colorado.edu
   Google Scholar
• 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: 10.1002/tea.20415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russ‌‌, R. S., Scherr‌‌‌‌, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499–525. doi: 10.1002/sce.20264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanger, M. J., ‌Brecheisen, D. M., & Hynek, B. M. (2001). Can computer animations affect college biology students' conceptions about diffusion & osmosis? The American Biology Teacher, 63(2), 104–109. doi: 10.1662/0002-7685(2001)063[0104:CCAACB]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, C. V., Akcaoglu, M., Ke, L., & Zhan, L. (2013, April). Fifth grade students’ engagement in modeling practice across content areas: What epistemologies in practice change over time and how?. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, C. V., Gunckel, K. L., Smith, E. L., Covitt, B. A., Bae, M., Enfield, M., & Tsurusaki, B. K. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92(2), 345–377. doi: 10.1002/sce.20243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., … 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: 10.1002/tea.20311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seel, N. M. (2017). Model-based learning: A synthesis of theory and research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 931–966. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9507-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687–715. doi: 10.1002/tea.20324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515–565). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
   Google Scholar
• Stieff, M., & McCombs, M. (2006, June). Increasing representational fluency with visualization tools. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 730–736). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Tinker, R., & Xie, Q. (2008). Applying computational science to education: The molecular workbench paradigm. Computing in Science and Engineering, 10(5), 24–27. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2008.108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000070306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilensky, U. (1999). Netlogo [computer software]. Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkerson, M. H., Shareff, R., Laina, V., & Gravel, B. (2018). Epistemic gameplay and discovery in computational model-based inquiry activities. Instructional Science, 46(35), 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. E., & Macrander, C. A. (2013). SiMSAM: An integrated toolkit to bridge student, scientific, and mathematical ideas using computational media. Proceedings of the international conference of computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL 2013) (Vol. 2, pp. 379–381), Madison, WI.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Balancing curricular and pedagogical needs in computational construction kits: Lessons from the DeltaTick project. Science Education, 99(3), 465–499. doi: 10.1002/sce.21157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkerson-Jerde, M., Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Balancing curricular and pedagogical needs in computational construction kits: Lessons from the DeltaTick project. Science Education, 99(3), 465–499. doi: 10.1002/sce.21157
   Google Scholar
• Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310–378. doi: 10.1080/07370000802177193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar