High School Students’ Understandings of Models in Biology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2022u909934Keywords:
Models in Biology, Epistemology, Nature of Science, Biology Teaching, Science TeachingAbstract
This study aims to identify and analyze students' conceptions about aspects of scientific models. Individual, semi-structured interviews were carried out on high school students, who answered to questions related to biology, grouped into general (without examples) and specific (with examples). The theoretical framework used for the analysis and attribution of meaning to the outcomes of the interviews is based on the categories and levels of complexity developed by Grünkorn et al. (2014). The corpus was examined and classified according to aspects of understanding of models: nature, multiplicity, objectives, mutability and model testing. Data demonstrated a significant presence of the idea of model as ‘a copy of the original’, in addition to a considerable association between model and scientific method, among other characteristics. Additionally, it was possible to notice that these conceptions vary according to the type of question (general or specific) and the content of the examples, in the case of specific questions. Based on these results, we raise the hypothesis that this variability can be explained in the light of G. Vergnaud's Theory of Conceptual Fields.
References
Almeida, D. J. E., Almeida, R. B. S., & Ferry, A. S. (2018). MAES-3DMF: Mapeamento estrutural de um Modelo Analógico do Espaço Sideral 3D em Meio Fluido para o ensino de Ciências. Latin American Journal of Science Education, 5(2), e22004(1–17). http://www.lajse.org/nov18/2018_22004.pdf
Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo. 70.
Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2005). Dynamic assessments of pre-service teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling. In K. Boersma, M. Eijkelhof, M. Goedhart & O. Jong (Orgs.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 309–323). Springer.
Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2007). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379–1401. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690410001673775
Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (Eds.) (2000). Developing models in science education. Springer Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0876-1
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, E. R. (2000). Positioning Models in Science Education and in Design and Technology Education. In J. K. Gilbert, & C. J. Boulter (Orgs.), Developing Models in Science Education (pp. 3–17).Springer Dordrecht.
Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Models of Modelling. In J. K. Gilbert, & R. Justi (Orgs.), Modelling-based Teaching in Science Education (pp. 17–40). Springer International Publishing.
Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280107
Ginsburg, H. (1997). What Happens in the Clinical Interview?. In H. Ginsburg (Org.), Enteringthe Child’s Mind: The Clinical Interview in Psychological Research and Practice (pp. 70–114). Cambridge University Press.
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289976
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and theiruse 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
Grünkorn, J., Upmeier Zu Belzen, A., & Krüger, D. (2014). Assessing students’ understandings of biological models and their use in science to evaluate a theoretical framework. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1651–1684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.873155
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.Ectj, 29(75), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
Jansen, S., Knippels, M.-C. P. J., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2019). Assessing students’ understanding of models of biological processes: a revised framework. International Journal of Science Education, 41(8), 981–994. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1582821
Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369–1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070324
Krapas, S., Queiroz, G., Colinvaux, D., & Franco, C. (1997). Modelos: uma análise de sentidos na literatura de pesquisa em ensino de ciências. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 2(3), 185–205. https://www.if.ufrgs.br/cref/ojs/index.php/ienci/article/view/627/416
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. International Biometric Society, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lederman, N. G., Abd-el-khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Scwartz, R. S. (2002) Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497– 521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegltle, K. H. (2006). Methods in educational research: from theory to practice. Jossey-Bass.
Mahr, B. (2009). Information science and the logic of models. Software & Systems Modeling, 8(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-009-0119-2
Martins, A. F. P. (2015). Natureza da Ciência no ensino de ciências: uma proposta baseada em “temas” e “questões”. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 32(3), 703–737. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7941.2015v32n3p703
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007- 9081-y
Mchugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://hrcak.srce.hr/89395
Oh, P. S., & 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
Passmore, C., Svoboda, J. G., & Giere, R. N. (2014). Models in science and in learning science: focusing scientific practice on sense-making. In M. R. Matthews (Orgs.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1171–1202). Springer.
Reinisch, B., & Krüger, D. (2016). Preservice Biology Teachers’ Conceptions about the Tentative Nature of Theories and Models in Biology. Research in Science Education, 48, 71–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9559-1
Taber, K. S. (2012). The natures of scientific thinking: Creativity as the handmaiden to logic in the development of public and personal knowledge. In M. S. Khine (Org.), Advances in Nature of Science Research (pp. 51–74). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2457-0_3
Upmeier Zu Belzen, A., & Krüger, D. (2010). Modellkompetenz im Biologieunterricht [Modelcompetence in biology education]. Zeitschriftfrür Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften [Journal of science education], 16, 41–57. https://archiv.ipn.uni-kiel.de/zfdn/pdf/16_Upmeier.pdf
Van Der Valk, T., Van Driel, J. H., & De Vos, W. (2007). Common characteristics of models in present-day scientific practice. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9036-3
Vergnaud, G. (1986). Psychologie du developpement cognitif et didactique des mathematiques. Grand N, 38, 21–40.
Verganud, G. (2013). Pourquoi la theorie des champs conceptuels?. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36(2), 131–161. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037013806196283
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Bruna Levy Pestana Fernandes, Juliana Machado, Guilherme Inocêncio Matos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors are responsible for the veracity of the information provided and for the content of the papers.
The authors who publish in this journal fully agree with the following terms:
- The authors attest that the work is unpublished, that is, it has not been published in another journal, event notices or equivalent.
- The authors attest that they did not submit the paper to another journal simultaneously.
- The authors retain the copyright and grant to RPBEC the right of first publication, with the work licensed simultaneously under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- The authors attest that they own the copyright or the written permission from copyright owners of figures, tables, large texts, etc. that are included in the paper.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, to publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after the publication in order to increase the impact and citation of published work.
In case of identification of plagiarism, inappropriate republishing and simultaneous submissions, the authors authorize the Editorial Board to make public what happened, informing the editors of the journals involved, any plagiarized authors and their institutions of origin.
