The modeling instruction pedagogy for the teaching of physics has been proven to be quite effective at increasing the conceptual understanding and problem-solving abilities of students to a much greater extent than that of nonmodeling students. Little research has been conducted concerning the cognitive and metacognitive skills that modeling students develop that allow for these increases. Two studies were designed to answer the following question: In what ways do the knowledge structures, metacognitive skills, and problem-solving abilities differ between modeling and nonmodeling students? In study 1, the knowledge structures developed by two groups of high school physics students taught using differing pedagogies (modeling instruction in physics and traditional methods) were determined using a card-sort task. The student’s knowledge structures were then correlated with the scores they obtained on two measures: the force concept inventory (FCI) and a problem-solving task (PS task) developed for this study. The modeling students had a more expertlike knowledge structure, while the nonmodeling students produced structures that were novicelike. In addition, the expert score correlated highly with performance on both the FCI and PS task scores demonstrating that a higher expert score predicted a higher value on each of these measures while a higher surface feature score predicted a lower score on both of these measures. In study 2, a verbal protocol design allowed for a detailed study of the problem-solving and metacognitive skills utilized by the two groups. It was determined that the skills utilized by the modeling instruction students were more expertlike. In addition, the modeling students produced significantly fewer physics errors while catching and repairing a greater percentage of their errors

International assessments have revealed that students in numerous nations lack scientific reasoning skills. Science teachers who support students’ scientific skill development through the use of authentic practices provide students with tools needed for success in future science courses. Teachers training focused on pedagogy that supports student scientific reasoning development is particularly important as some studies have also suggested that pre-service teachers have a tendency to display a lack of scientific reasoning skills. Additionally, few studies exist that assess teachers’ scientific reasoning skills, including the effectiveness of professional development to strengthen teacher scientific reasoning abilities over time. To help fill this gap, this study examines the effects of a Modeling Instruction in a biology workshop on teachers’ scientific reasoning skills. In addition to teacher interviews, focus groups, and writing samples, data from Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR) were collected from teachers before and after the workshop. The results suggest that the three-week Modeling Instruction in the biology workshop contributed to gains in in-service teachers’ scientific reasoning, and thus provides evidence that the teachers in this study are more prepared to help develop similar skills with their own students as they engage in the Modeling Instruction curriculum.

The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the effectiveness of blended learning within the context of a science education methods course for early childhood elementary preservice teachers in Turkey. Elementary teachers historically fear science and avoid using it in their classes. This course was blended to allow the students to experience active science learning during face to face sessions. Student perceptions about their experiences in a blended methods course were collected using a previously validated survey. The data analysis of the post-test only survey research design demonstrated that students' perceptions were positive towards the use of blended learning within their science education methods course. However, the analysis determined that students felt that certain technical aspects of the blended learning environment hindered their learning.

No abstract

for additional information. This is an Open Access journal. This means that it uses a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. Readers may freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles. This journal is covered under the CC BY-NC-ND license.