Teacher Candidates’ Evaluations of Model Examples

Author(s):

Ayse Yenilmez Turkoglu(presenting / submitting)Ceren Oztekin

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 01 C, Changing Roles of Teacher Educators

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-10

13:15-14:45

Room:

A-203

Chair:

Mavis Haigh

Contribution

Several definitions and types of model exist due to the wide use of the term by philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, and artists. In arts, for example, the term refers to a person or a sculpture, however in science; it refers to an idea, an object, or a system. Similarly, when this term is used in referring to scientific and chemical models, it has a broad meaning however; when used in everyday language, it refers to a copy, replica or image (Chittleborough, 2004).

Models are expressed through modes of representations like, concrete, visual, verbal, mathematical, and gestural representations (Davies & Gilbert, 2003). In other words, they can be physical objects, fictional objects, set-theoretic structures, descriptions, equations, or a mixture of these (Frigg & Hartmann, 2005). Models, which are physical objects, can also be called as material models, and serve as scientific representations of concepts like, Watson and Crick’s model of DNA (Frigg & Hartmann, 2005). However, most of the models are not physical, but are fictional objects. A frictionless pendulum or an isolated population, for example, are not physically present but are abstract or theoretical, and are in the scientists’ minds. Models can also be descriptions of target systems in papers or textbooks, or can be equations (which are also called as mathematical models). Models like Darwin’s model of natural selection or Lamarck’s model of inheritance, on the other hand, are explanatory models since evolutionary biology is concerned with events that cover multimillion years of history, and these models provide explanations about these events (Passmore & Steward, 2002).

It is obvious that according to use, or mode of representing, models take different names, and this situation results in different types of models. These classifications, considering uses, types, or learning situations, tend to provide a different perspective for understanding models better. In line with this idea, in this study, Turkish pre-service science teachers were asked to decide and reflect on several models/entities that are presented to them. They were first asked to decide whether the given entity is a model or not, and then asked to reflect on it. Further, they were also asked whether it is possible to classify models or not, and if so, how they are classified. Pre-service science teachers’ reflections are important because these reflections would reveal their understandings about the characteristics that they devote to models. We believed that, focusing on specific examples and reflecting on them is a useful way to uncover understandings about models. Besides, it is important to uncover pre-service science teachers’ understandings of models since they have significant roles in promoting their students’ learning (Davis, Kenyon, Hug, Nelson, Beyer, Schwarz, & Reiser, 2008).

This paper seeks to address following research questions:

What are the characteristics that pre-service science teachers assign to models in response to their evaluations of several model examples?
How do pre-service science teachers classify models?

Method

For the purpose of the study, 17 senior pre-service science teachers enrolled in Elementary Science Education program at a large public university located in Ankara were interviewed. During the interviews, participants were asked to decide whether a number of entities were models or not. The entities included a wide range of modes, from daily use of the term model (e.g. top models) to symbolic models (e.g. chemical formulae), explanatory models (e.g. evolutionary theory), physical models (DNA model), pedagogical analogical models (e.g. balls and sticks in molecular bonds), scale models (e.g. toy car, house mock up), or computer generated models (e.g. simulations). Further, the participants were also asked if they could propose a classification of models. Data were analyzed based on qualitative data analyses methods to reveal themes and patterns about participants’ understandings about the characteristics and types of models.

Expected Outcomes

The findings showed that, in assigning the given entities as models or not, several characteristics that participants devoted to models were revealed. Being visual or three dimensional, showing the structure of the real thing, resemblance and closeness to the real thing, abstract nature of the real thing, reifying abstract concepts, and model’s explanatory power were among the characteristics evolved. To illustrate, most of the participants did not assign chemical formulae as models since they do not show the structure of the molecule; however, when they were asked whether ball-and-stick type of representation of the molecule is a model or not, the participants were quite sure that they were models. From such responses, it was concluded that they favored three-dimensional representations as ‘real’ models, and they devoted the three-dimensional nature as a characteristic of models. In respect of the classification of models, on the other hand, the participants frequently referred to the basic disciplines of science (i.e., physics, chemistry, and biology), and stated that models can be classified in terms of these disciplines, namely, as physical models, chemical models, and biological models.

References

Chittleborough, G.D. (2004). The role of teaching models and chemical representations in developing students’ mental models of chemical phenomena. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Australia. Davies, T. & Gilbert, J. (2003). Modeling: Promoting creativity while forging links between science education and design and technology education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(1), 67-82. Frigg, R. & Hartmann, S. (2005). Scientific Models. In Sarkar, S. and Pfeifer, J. (Eds.), The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 2. (pp.740-749) Routledge, New York. USA. Passmore, C. & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204. Davis, E.A., Kenyon, L., Hug, B., Nelson, M., Beyer, C., Schwarz, C., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). MoDeLS: Designing supports for teachers using scientific modeling. Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher Education, St. Louis, MO, January 10, 2008

Author Information

Ayse Yenilmez Turkoglu (presenting / submitting)

Sinop University, Turkey

Ceren Oztekin

Middle East Technical University, Turkey

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.