Building functional models: Designing an elbow

Abstract

Previous work suggests that children largely perceive science as the passive observation and recording of events. In contrast, studies of practicing scientists show a concern with building and testing models. In this study we investigated the role of a design context for developing children's understanding of science as the construction and revision of models. Grade 1-2 children were given the task of building a model that works like a human elbow. Via discussion, model building, evaluation, and revision, children came to understand that not only motion but also constraints on motion were important qualities to include in their models. Moreover, review of classroom activity and analysis of the postmodeling interview suggest that as early as first grade, children's model-evaluation skills may be quite amenable to development: In comparison to a nonmodeling peer group, modelers were largely able to ignore perceptual qualities when asked to judge the functional qualities of models. Further, they showed an understanding of the modeling process in general that was similar to that of children 3-4 years older.

Modeling complex marine ecosystems: an investigation of two teaching approaches with fifth graders

“…Students' performance in the TRD group did not show any signs of improvement in any of the six constituent aspects of the modeling skill. These findings were not surprising, because as Penner et al . (1997) stated ‘without appropriate instruction and participation in a context in which models are used as tools to support activity, there is little reason to expect that much development would occur’ (p. 142).…”

“…In addition, SC, the modeling tool that has been utilized for the purposes of this study, enabled students to construct, test, revise and validate dynamic models of a marine ecosystem through building, testing and debugging complex rules and programs for simulating multiple behaviours and processes of marine species as observed through ‘The Blue Planet’ documentary. These findings indicate that the design and implementation of a sequence of modeling‐based activities, based upon a detailed analysis of modeling skills (see also Penner et al . 1997; Stratford et al .…”

How the Affordances of Different Modeling Tools Impact Kindergartener‐Constructed Models and Modeling Reasoning

“…The extant research has argued that in MbL, the teacher needs to offer learners a learning environment and proper support for investigating (or observing) and modeling physical phenomena (e.g., Louca, Zacharia, and Constantinou 2011; Louca and Zacharia 2015, 2023; Baek et al 2011; Gilbert and Justi 2016; Halloun 2006; Osborne 2014; Schwarz et al 2009). This support and scaffolding may address the identification and discussion of similarities and differences between the phenomenon represented and its model representation (e.g., Carey and Smith 1993; Penner et al 1997; Schwarz et al 2009; Varelas et al 2010); the identification of the limitations of child‐constructed models as representations of phenomena that, depending on their purpose, may include different aspects of the corresponding phenomenon (Schwarz et al 2009; Tytler et al 2013); and the understanding the role of models as a way to improve one's understanding of how the phenomenon under study takes place (Schwarz et al 2009). This study suggests that in addition of what we know so far about what teachers should provide to learners concerning modeling, the teachers should also be in a position to introduce experiences with a variety of modeling tools in MbL.…”

Supporting Scientific Practice through Model-Based Inquiry: A Students’-Eye View of Grappling with Data, Uncertainty, and Community in a Laboratory Experience

“…In other instances, students integrated theoretical and empirical aspects, using models to depict their abstract explanations. These results are reminiscent of the findings from another study in which elementary students were asked to make their own representations of an elbow ( Penner et al. , 1997 ).…”