- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Reasoning with evidence while modeling: Successes at the middle school level

Lauren A. Barth-Cohen1,2,*, Sarah K. Braden3, Tamara G. Young2, and Sara Gailey3

  • 1University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA
  • 2University of Utah, Department of Physics & Astronomy, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA
  • 3Utah State University, School of Teacher Education & Leadership, Logan, Utah 84322, USA

  • *Lauren.BarthCohen@utah.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020106 – Published 4 August, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020106

Abstract

Research in undergraduate physics and in K–12 science education has demonstrated challenges and successes in facilitating student engagement with reasoning practices associated with professional physicists. Here we focus on one important dimension of physics reasoning, using evidence to revise models. While this topic has been explored at the undergraduate level, less is known about younger students’ physics reasoning, especially within the context of modeling and model revision, where measurement tools are less emphasized and where evidence is often observational qualitative data. Here we examine 7th graders’ conversations about pieces of observational scientific evidence in their conceptual models of magnetism. We present a series of cases from a whole class discussion to illustrate students’ productive reasoning using evidence while revising, challenging, and testing their scientific models. These cases illustrate how students reason about evidence in the context of canonical and noncanonical models of magnetism, specifically when different pieces of evidence contradict each other and when running the model is inconclusive. The results capture a variety of complex ways evidence can be productively used in reasoning with models, and, more importantly, show that middle school students’ reasoning shares important similarities with more advanced physics reasoning, which can be leveraged when designing and building future instruction.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (76)

  1. D. R. Dounas-Frazer, K. L. Van De Bogart, M. R. Stetzer, and H. Lewandowski, Investigating the role of model-based reasoning while troubleshooting an electric circuit, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010137 (2016).
  2. T. O. B. Odden and R. S. Russ, Sensemaking epistemic game: A model of student sensemaking processes in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020122 (2018).
  3. B. M. Zwickl, D. Hu, N. Finkelstein, and H. Lewandowski, Model-based reasoning in the physics laboratory: Framework and initial results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020113 (2015).
  4. C. V. Schwarz, B. J. Reiser, E. A. Davis, L. Kenyon, A. Achér, D. Fortus, Y. Shwartz, B. Hug, and J. Krajcik, Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 632 (2009).
  5. A. L. Stephens and J. J. Clement, Documenting the use of expert scientific reasoning processes by high school physics students, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020122 (2010).
  6. L. A. Bryan, Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system about science teaching and learning, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 835 (2003).
  7. C. J. Eick and C. J. Reed, What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? the influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice, Sci. Educ. 86, 401 (2002).
  8. P. R. Aschbacher, E. Li, and E. J. Roth, Is science me? high school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 564 (2010).
  9. National Research Council, A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
  10. NGSS Lead States, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013).
  11. R. Lehrer and L. Schauble, Cultivating Model-Based Reasoning in Science Education (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2006).
  12. R. Duschl, Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals, Rev. Res. Educ. 32, 268 (2008).
  13. C. T. Forbes, L. Zangori, and C. V. Schwarz, Empirical validation of integrated learning performances for hydrologic phenomena: 3rd-grade students’ model-driven explanation construction, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 52, 895 (2015).
  14. J. L. Jenkins and E. M. Howard, Implementation of modeling instruction in a high school chemistry unit on energy and states of matter, Sci. Educ. Int. 30, 97 (2019).
  15. R. Lehrer and L. Schauble, Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations, Sci. Educ. 96, 701 (2012).
  16. E. Manz, Understanding the codevelopment of modeling practice and ecological knowledge, Sci. Educ. 96, 1071 (2012).
  17. C. V. Schwarz and B. Y. White, Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling, Cognit. Instr. 23, 165 (2005).
  18. L. Zangori and C. T. Forbes, Development of an empirically based learning performances framework for third-grade students model-based explanations about plant processes, Sci. Educ. 100, 961 (2016).
  19. M. Won, H. Yoon, and D. F. Treagust, Students learning strategies with multiple representations: Explanations of the human breathing mechanism, Sci. Educ. 98, 840 (2014).
  20. L. T. Louca and Z. C. Zacharia, Modeling-based learning in science education: cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions, Educ. Rev. 64, 471 (2012).
  21. J. Stewart, J. L. Cartier, and C. M. Passmore, Developing understanding through model-based inquiry, How Students Learn (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005), pp. 515–565.
  22. M. Windschitl, J. Thompson, and M. Braaten, Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations, Sci. Educ. 92, 941 (2008).
  23. M. F. Cheng and D. E. Brown, The role of scientific modeling criteria in advancing students’ explanatory ideas of magnetism, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 52, 1053 (2015).
  24. J. P. Gutwill, J. R. Frederiksen, and B. Y. White, Making their own connections: Students’ understanding of multiple models in basic electricity, Cognit. Instr. 17, 249 (1999).
  25. E. Manz, Understanding the codevelopment of modeling practice and ecological knowledge, Sci. Educ. 96, 1071 (2012).
  26. R. S. Russ, R. E. Scherr, D. Hammer, and J. Mikeska, Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science, Sci. Educ. 92, 499 (2008).
  27. R. N. Balliet, E. M. Riggs, and A. V. Maltese, Students’ problem solving approaches for developing geologic models in the field, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 52, 1109 (2015).
  28. R. G. Tobin, S. J. Lacy, S. Crissman, and N. Haddad, Model-based reasoning about energy: A fourth-grade case study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 55, 1134 (2018).
  29. L. K. Berland, C. V. Schwarz, C. Krist, L. Kenyon, A. S. Lo, and B. J. Reiser, Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 53, 1082 (2016).
  30. D. E. Penner, N. D. Giles, R. Lehrer, and L. Schauble, Building functional models: Designing an elbow, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 125 (1997).
  31. C. Schwarz, B. J. Reiser, A. Acher, L. Kenyon, and D. Fortus, Models: Challenges in defining a learning progression for scientific modeling,Learning Progressions in Science (Brill Sense, Rotterdam, 2012), pp. 101–137.
  32. J. Stewart, R. Hafner, S. Johnson, and E. Finkel, Science as model building: Computers and high-school genetics, Educ. Psych. 27, 317 (1992).
  33. L. Barth-Cohen and S. K. Braden, Unpacking the complexity in learning to observe in field geology, Cogn. Instr. (to be published).
  34. C. Eberbach and K. Crowley, From everyday to scientific observation: How children learn to observe the biologists world, Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 39 (2009).
  35. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Modeling instruction in mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 55, 455 (1987).
  36. I. Halloun, Schematic modeling for meaningful learning of physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 33, 1019 (1996).
  37. E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. OBrien, Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with class, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 013102 (2009).
  38. M. B. Brewer, Intergroup relations (Oxford University Press, 2010).
  39. E. Etkina, A. Warren, and M. Gentile, The role of models in physics instruction, Phys. Teach. 44, 34 (2006).
  40. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, and M. Ruibal-Villasenor, How long does it take? A study of student acquisition of scientific abilities, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020108 (2008).
  41. A. Karelina and E. Etkina, Acting like a physicist: Student approach study to experimental design, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020106 (2007).
  42. A. Leniz, K. Zuza, and J. Guisasola, Students reasoning when tackling electric field and potential in explanation of dc resistive circuits, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010128 (2017).
  43. N. Holmes and D. Bonn, Doing science or doing a lab? Engaging students with scientific reasoning during physics lab experiments, in Proceedings of the 2013 Physics Education Research Conference (AIP, New York, 2013).
  44. J. T. Stanley, W. Su, and H. Lewandowski, Using lab notebooks to examine students engagement in modeling in an upper-division electronics lab course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020127 (2017).
  45. M. Vonk, P. Bohacek, C. Militello, and E. Iverson, Developing model-making and model-breaking skills using direct measurement video-based activities, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020106 (2017).
  46. R. S. Russ and T. O. B. Odden, Intertwining evidence-and model-based reasoning in physics sensemaking: An example from electrostatics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020105 (2017).
  47. D. B. Harlow, Structures and improvisation for inquiry-based science instruction: A teacher’s adaptation of a model of magnetism activity, Sci. Educ. 94, 142 (2010).
  48. M. W. McColgan, R. A. Finn, D. L. Broder, and G. E. Hassel, Assessing students conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020121 (2017).
  49. D. P. Maloney, T. L. OKuma, C. J. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001).
  50. E. Bagno and B.-S. Eylon, From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of electromagnetism, Am. J. Phys. 65, 726 (1997).
  51. K. Jelicic, M. Planinic, and G. Planinsic, Analyzing high school students reasoning about electromagnetic induction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010112 (2017).
  52. J. Park, Modelling analysis of students processes of generating scientific explanatory hypotheses, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 469 (2006).
  53. D. E. Brown and D. Hammer, Conceptual change in physics, in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (Routledge, London, 2009), pp. 155–182.
  54. A. A. diSessa, Why conceptual ecology is a good idea, in Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (Springer, New York, 2002), pp. 28–60.
  55. D. Hammer and E. van Zee, The beginnings of scientific reasoning, in Seeing the Science in Children’s Thinking: Case Studies of Student Inquiry in Physical Science (Heinemann, New York, 2006), pp. 13–37.
  56. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).
  57. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective (Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2005), Vol. 89.
  58. D. Hammer and A. Elby, On the form of a personal epistemology, in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (Routledge, Mahwah NJ, 2002), Vol. 169190.
  59. J. Krajcik and J. Merritt, Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom?, Sci. Teach. 79, 38 (2012), https://www.proquest.com/docview/1000411241?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true.
  60. C. Passmore, C. V. Schwarz, and J. Mankowski, Developing and using models, in Helping Students make Sense of the World using Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices (NSTA Press, Arlington VA, 2017), p. 109.
  61. L. Kenyon, C. Schwarz, and B. Hug, The benefits of scientific modeling, Sci. Child. 46, 40 (2008), https://www.proquest.com/docview/236902580?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true.
  62. S. Michaels and C. O’Connor, Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion, in Socializing Intelligence through Talk and Dialogue (2015), p. 347.
  63. D. Fisher, C. Rothenberg, and N. Frey, Content-Area Conversations: How to Plan Discussion-Based Lessons for Diverse Language Learners (ASCD, Alexandria, VA, 2008).
  64. K. O’Connor, Communicative practice, cultural production, and situated learning: Constructing and contesting identities of expertise in a heterogeneous learning context, in Linguistic Anthropology of Education, Praeger, Westport, CT, edited by S. Wortham and B. Rymes (2003), 61.
  65. S. K. Braden, Linguistic expertise, mockery, and appropriateness in the construction of identities: A case study from 9th grade physics, Bilingual Res. J. 42, 432 (2019).
  66. S. K. Braden, Scientists can’t really talk to people: Unpacking students metacommentary on the racialized and gendered science nerd trope, Int. J. Multicult. Educ. 22, 87 (2020).
  67. S. K. Braden, L. Barth-Cohen, S. Gailey, and T. G. Young, Modeling magnetism with the floating paper clip: Supporting diverse learners with visual and linguistic scaffolds, Sci. Scope (to be published).
  68. J. Creswell and C. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, 4th ed. (Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2018).
  69. J. DuBois and S. Cumming, Discourse transcription, in Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, edited by S. Schuetze-Coburn and D. Paolino (Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 1992), Vol. 4.
  70. D. E. Polkinghorne, Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis, Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 8, 5 (1995).
  71. R. E. Stake, The Art of Case Study Research (Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995).
  72. M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994).
  73. R. K. Yin, Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2017).
  74. P. Sengupta and U. Wilensky, Learning electricity with Niels: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels, Int. J. Comp. Math. Learn. 14, 21 (2009).
  75. F. M. Goldberg, S. Robinson, and V. K. Otero, Physics for Elementary Teachers (It’s about time, Mount Kisco, New York, 2006).
  76. L. Bollen, P. van Kampen, C. Baily, M. Kelly, and M. De Cock, Student difficulties regarding symbolic and graphical representations of vector fields, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020109 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020106– Published 4 August, 2021
  • Received 21 September 2020
  • Accepted 10 May 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation