Lehrer (2009) - Revision history

imported>Raymond Johnson: Changed Kuhn (1962) link to go to Wikipedia

2015-04-28T01:44:11Z

Changed Kuhn (1962) link to go to Wikipedia

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, 28 April 2015
Line 54:		Line 54:
	Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science as modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).		Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science as modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).

	Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; ~~{{Cite\|~~Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}), historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), or ethnography ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.		Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions Kuhn, 1962]) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}), historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), or ethnography ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.

	While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2002a]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.		While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2002a]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.

imported>Raymond Johnson: linked Boaler 2002 to Boaler (2002) (book)

2013-11-21T01:13:57Z

linked Boaler 2002 to Boaler (2002) (book)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:13, 21 November 2013
Line 42:		Line 42:
	: Material means play a larger role in some disciplines, particularly in science where there is a history of debate between knowledge via reasoning versus through experiments and instruments. Lehrer's concern for school science is that "materiality is obscured by providing students with questions to answer, apparatus, and prescribed routines, exemplified by labs. Students are seldom asked to struggle with the material problem of developing conditions or instruments for investigation. Yet, these struggles with the natural world define, constrain, and enhance scientific ways of knowing" (p. 762).		: Material means play a larger role in some disciplines, particularly in science where there is a history of debate between knowledge via reasoning versus through experiments and instruments. Lehrer's concern for school science is that "materiality is obscured by providing students with questions to answer, apparatus, and prescribed routines, exemplified by labs. Students are seldom asked to struggle with the material problem of developing conditions or instruments for investigation. Yet, these struggles with the natural world define, constrain, and enhance scientific ways of knowing" (p. 762).
	;Modes and Means of Argument		;Modes and Means of Argument
	: Disciplines rely on unique rhetoric ({{Cite\|Bazerman\|1988}}). Mathematical proof, for example, is a form of argument essential to the disciplined but used with difficulty students and, frequently, their teachers (e.g., {{Cite\|Hanna\|1995}}). Sometimes "what counts" as an explanation is a negotiated norm (e.g., {{Cite\|Yackel & Cobb\|1996}}), a condition that supports greater conceptual understanding (~~{{Cite~~\|Boaler\|2002~~}}<!--Experiencing School Mathematics-->~~).		: Disciplines rely on unique rhetoric ({{Cite\|Bazerman\|1988}}). Mathematical proof, for example, is a form of argument essential to the disciplined but used with difficulty students and, frequently, their teachers (e.g., {{Cite\|Hanna\|1995}}). Sometimes "what counts" as an explanation is a negotiated norm (e.g., {{Cite\|Yackel & Cobb\|1996}}), a condition that supports greater conceptual understanding ([[Boaler (2002) (book)\|Boaler, 2002]]).
	;Identity		;Identity
	: [[Gee (1999)]] argued that learning goes beyond content and performance to include "a particular type of who (identity) engaged in a particular type of what (activity)" ([[Gee (1999)\|Gee, 1999, p. 18]]). The design of learning environments should consider what it means to participate in the discipline ({{Cite\|Gresalfi\|2009}}) and how to author disciplinary knowledge ({{Cite\|Lehrer\|1993}}).		: [[Gee (1999)]] argued that learning goes beyond content and performance to include "a particular type of who (identity) engaged in a particular type of what (activity)" ([[Gee (1999)\|Gee, 1999, p. 18]]). The design of learning environments should consider what it means to participate in the discipline ({{Cite\|Gresalfi\|2009}}) and how to author disciplinary knowledge ({{Cite\|Lehrer\|1993}}).

imported>Raymond Johnson: added summaries category

2013-11-14T18:31:15Z

added summaries category

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:31, 14 November 2013
Line 88:		Line 88:
	</pre>		</pre>

			[[Category:Summaries]]
	[[Category:Journal Articles]]		[[Category:Journal Articles]]
	[[Category:American Psychologist]]		[[Category:American Psychologist]]

imported>Raymond Johnson: finish summary

2013-11-14T02:45:15Z

finish summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:45, 14 November 2013
Line 56:		Line 56:
	Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; {{Cite\|Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}), historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), or ethnography ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.		Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; {{Cite\|Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}), historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), or ethnography ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.

	While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble (2002a)]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.		While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2002a]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.

	Lehrer's use of modeling with students initially focused on models that had some literal similarity ({{Cite\|Grosslight, Unger, Jay, & Smith\|1991}}) to the natural system, then transitioned towards models that focused more on the relations to the system and reflected the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}). When students represent natural phenomena with models, the model is not just a recording, but also a representation of selections and interpretations. Students' use of mathematical inscriptions were particularly useful, as they transport across systems and enlarge the conceptual field in what [[Latour (1999)]] called circulating reference.		Lehrer's use of modeling with students initially focused on models that had some literal similarity ({{Cite\|Grosslight, Unger, Jay, & Smith\|1991}}) to the natural system, then transitioned towards models that focused more on the relations to the system and reflected the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}). When students represent natural phenomena with models, the model is not just a recording, but also a representation of selections and interpretations. Students' use of mathematical inscriptions were particularly useful, as they transport across systems and enlarge the conceptual field in what [[Latour (1999)]] called circulating reference.

	For example, students modeling plant growth ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, Carpenter, & Penner\|2000}}) initially drew simple sketches of the plants, while later plant sketches were annotated with labels indicating height at various points in time. A later model illustrated plant growth with a graph, with different rates of growth identified between various points in time. Students measuring a bacteria population fit an exponential curve to model growth, then had to revise their model as the bacteria population slowed due to limited resources. The mathematical structure allowed for conjecturing and experimenting (by increasing the nutrient level to the bacteria, for example), and supported students' thinking about both the organisms and population of organisms. Students also considered matters of distribution and chance in relation to population growth ({{Cite\|Lehrer & Schauble\|2004}}) and made inquiries not only about the natural system, but about factors that cause change seen in their models.		For example, students modeling plant growth ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, Carpenter, & Penner\|2000}}) initially drew simple sketches of the plants, while later plant sketches were annotated with labels indicating height at various points in time. A later model illustrated plant growth with a graph, with different rates of growth identified between various points in time. Students measuring a bacteria population fit an exponential curve to model growth, then had to revise their model as the bacteria population slowed due to limited resources. The mathematical structure allowed for conjecturing and experimenting (by increasing the nutrient level to the bacteria, for example), and supported students' thinking about both the organisms and population of organisms. Students also considered matters of distribution and chance in relation to population growth ({{Cite\|Lehrer & Schauble\|2004}}) and made inquiries not only about the natural system, but about factors that cause change seen in their models.

			The example Lehrer provides shows a different kind of science, one that studies natural systems using different methods of investigation ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) cultivating\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006a]]) using both physical and representation models. Physical models can amplify certain phenomena and draws attention to why things observed and measured, unlike traditional science lab experiments ({{Cite\|Schauble, Glaser, Duschl, Schulze, & John\|1995}}). Representational models encourage students to redescribe natural phenomena and promote conceptual growth. Representational models inscribe phenomena in ways that can be transported to other contexts, with mathematical inscriptions being particularly powerful. Together, physical models and representational models compliment each other ({{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), and teachers can use them to give students opportunities to engage in disciplinary learning.

	== Also ==		== Also ==
Line 91:		Line 93:
	[[Category:Learning Sciences]]		[[Category:Learning Sciences]]
	[[Category:Design Research]]		[[Category:Design Research]]
			[[Category:Modeling and Representation]]

imported>Raymond Johnson: /* Designing a Science Education */

2013-11-13T18:43:39Z

Designing a Science Education

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 13 November 2013
Line 58:		Line 58:
	While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble (2002a)]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.		While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble (2002a)]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.

	Lehrer's use of modeling with students initially focused on models that had some literal similarity ({{Cite\|Grosslight, Unger, Jay, & Smith\|1991}}) to the natural system, then transitioned towards models that focused more on the relations to the system and reflected the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}). When students represent natural phenomena with models, the model is not just a recording, but also a representation of selections and interpretations.		Lehrer's use of modeling with students initially focused on models that had some literal similarity ({{Cite\|Grosslight, Unger, Jay, & Smith\|1991}}) to the natural system, then transitioned towards models that focused more on the relations to the system and reflected the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}). When students represent natural phenomena with models, the model is not just a recording, but also a representation of selections and interpretations. Students' use of mathematical inscriptions were particularly useful, as they transport across systems and enlarge the conceptual field in what [[Latour (1999)]] called circulating reference.

			For example, students modeling plant growth ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, Carpenter, & Penner\|2000}}) initially drew simple sketches of the plants, while later plant sketches were annotated with labels indicating height at various points in time. A later model illustrated plant growth with a graph, with different rates of growth identified between various points in time. Students measuring a bacteria population fit an exponential curve to model growth, then had to revise their model as the bacteria population slowed due to limited resources. The mathematical structure allowed for conjecturing and experimenting (by increasing the nutrient level to the bacteria, for example), and supported students' thinking about both the organisms and population of organisms. Students also considered matters of distribution and chance in relation to population growth ({{Cite\|Lehrer & Schauble\|2004}}) and made inquiries not only about the natural system, but about factors that cause change seen in their models.

	== Also ==		== Also ==

imported>Raymond Johnson: /* Designing a Science Education */ reordered - the PDF was out of order!

2013-11-13T18:23:08Z

Designing a Science Education: reordered - the PDF was out of order!

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 13 November 2013
Line 54:		Line 54:
	Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science as modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).		Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science as modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).

	Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; {{Cite\|Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}) or historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), particularly those in which student models change to reflect the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}). When students represent natural phenomena with models, the model is not just a recording, but also a representation of selections and interpretations. Ethnography can also be an approach to modeling ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.		Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; {{Cite\|Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}), historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), or ethnography ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.

	While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble (2002a)]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.		While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble (2002a)]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.

			Lehrer's use of modeling with students initially focused on models that had some literal similarity ({{Cite\|Grosslight, Unger, Jay, & Smith\|1991}}) to the natural system, then transitioned towards models that focused more on the relations to the system and reflected the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}). When students represent natural phenomena with models, the model is not just a recording, but also a representation of selections and interpretations.

	== Also ==		== Also ==

imported>Raymond Johnson: /* Designing a Science Education */ added PD

2013-11-13T17:47:43Z

Designing a Science Education: added PD

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:47, 13 November 2013
Line 52:		Line 52:
	=== Designing a Science Education ===		=== Designing a Science Education ===

	Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science of modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).		Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science as modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).

	Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; {{Cite\|Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}) or historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), particularly those in which student models change to reflect the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}).		Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; {{Cite\|Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}) or historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), particularly those in which student models change to reflect the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}). When students represent natural phenomena with models, the model is not just a recording, but also a representation of selections and interpretations. Ethnography can also be an approach to modeling ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.

			While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble (2002a)]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.

	== Also ==		== Also ==

imported>Raymond Johnson: /* Designing a Science Education */ describing models

2013-11-13T05:20:02Z

Designing a Science Education: describing models

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:20, 13 November 2013
Line 53:		Line 53:

	Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science of modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).		Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science of modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).

			Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; {{Cite\|Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}) or historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), particularly those in which student models change to reflect the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}).

	== Also ==		== Also ==

imported>Raymond Johnson: added summary through science as logic

2013-11-13T04:52:30Z

added summary through science as logic

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:52, 13 November 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Title\|Designing to Develop Disciplinary Dispositions: Modeling Natural Systems}}		{{Title\|Designing to Develop Disciplinary Dispositions: Modeling Natural Systems}}
	~~__NOTOC__~~
	The article ''Designing to Develop Disciplinary Dispositions: Modeling Natural Systems'' was written by [[Richard Lehrer]] and published in ''[[American Psychologist]]'' in 2009. The article is available from PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19899886.		The article ''Designing to Develop Disciplinary Dispositions: Modeling Natural Systems'' was written by [[Richard Lehrer]] and published in ''[[American Psychologist]]'' in 2009. The article is available from PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19899886.

Line 51:		Line 51:

	=== Designing a Science Education ===		=== Designing a Science Education ===

			Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science of modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).

	== Also ==		== Also ==
Line 56:		Line 58:
	* Mendeley: http://www.mendeley.com/research/designing-develop-disciplinary-dispositions-modeling-natural-systems/		* Mendeley: http://www.mendeley.com/research/designing-develop-disciplinary-dispositions-modeling-natural-systems/

	~~===~~ APA ~~===~~		;APA
			: Lehrer, R. (2009). Designing to develop disciplinary dispositions: Modeling natural systems. ''American Psychologist'', 64(8), 759–71. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.759
	Lehrer, R. (2009). Designing to develop disciplinary dispositions: Modeling natural systems. ''American Psychologist'', 64(8), 759–71. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.759		;BibTeX

	~~===~~ BibTeX ~~===~~

	<pre>		<pre>
	@article{Lehrer2009,		@article{Lehrer2009,

imported>Raymond Johnson: /* Summary */

2013-11-13T03:38:53Z

Summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:38, 13 November 2013
Line 45:		Line 45:
	;Identity		;Identity
	: [[Gee (1999)]] argued that learning goes beyond content and performance to include "a particular type of who (identity) engaged in a particular type of what (activity)" ([[Gee (1999)\|Gee, 1999, p. 18]]). The design of learning environments should consider what it means to participate in the discipline ({{Cite\|Gresalfi\|2009}}) and how to author disciplinary knowledge ({{Cite\|Lehrer\|1993}}).		: [[Gee (1999)]] argued that learning goes beyond content and performance to include "a particular type of who (identity) engaged in a particular type of what (activity)" ([[Gee (1999)\|Gee, 1999, p. 18]]). The design of learning environments should consider what it means to participate in the discipline ({{Cite\|Gresalfi\|2009}}) and how to author disciplinary knowledge ({{Cite\|Lehrer\|1993}}).

			Using their [[pedagogical content knowledge]] ({{Cite\|Shulman\|1987}}), teachers can use the above elements to coordinate the relationship between disciplines and learners (e.g., {{Cite\|Lampert\|2001}}; {{Cite\|Seymour & Lehrer\|2006}}). In some disciplines, such as math ({{Cite\|Hill, Rowan, & Ball\|2005}}) and science ({{Cite\|Hammer & van Zee\|2006}}), pedagogical content knowledge is specialized to the discipline, and an increasing focus is given to the facilitation of disciplinary arguments ({{Cite\|Forman, Larreamendy-Joerns, Stein, & Brown\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Staples\|2007}}) and the value of student responses in that facilitation ({{Cite\|O'Connor & Michaels\|1996}}).

			Design experiments (or design studies) are a combination of intervention and investigation coordinated to research development and learning ({{Cite\|Brown\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Collins\|1992}}). Design experiments take an engineering approach "in which there is a serious epistemic analysis of the grounds for knowing in a discipline, along with development of possible genetic pathways for incubating the formation of these ways of knowing" (p. 762). The usefulness of design experiments is debatable ({{Cite\|Sloane & Gorard\|2003}}), but, done well, they can yield information about how the development of knowledge interacts with elements used in design. Instead of being driven by grand theories of learning, design experiments are generally driven by choices made by the designer over multiple iterations of a design cycle, where knowledge gained from one cycle informs the design choices made in the next cycle.

			=== Designing a Science Education ===

	== Also ==		== Also ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, 28 April 2015
Line 54:		Line 54:
	Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science as modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).		Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science as modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).

	Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; ~~{{Cite\|~~Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}), historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), or ethnography ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.		Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions Kuhn, 1962]) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}), historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), or ethnography ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.

	While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2002a]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.		While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2002a]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 13 November 2013
Line 54:		Line 54:
	Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science as modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).		Lehrer describes a design for science education that attempts to base children's education "in the invention and revision of models" (p. 763) of natural systems. This work includes design at two levels: the level of the student, and the level of the teacher who engages students in modeling. To define modeling, Lehrer differentiates between ''science as logic'' and ''science as modeling'' ([[Lehrer & Schauble (2006) scientific\|Lehrer & Schauble, 2006b]]), where science as logic reflects a more traditional view such as [[Inhelder & Piaget (1958)\|Inhelder & Piaget's (1958)]] description of science as skills and heuristics for hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Rooted in logical positivism ({{Cite\|Carnap\|1967}}; {{Cite\|Hempel\|1952}}; {{Cite\|Mach\|1898/1942}}), this logical view of science is believed to be generalizable ({{Cite\|Schunn & Anderson\|1999}}) and is recommended by some to be taught via direct instruction ({{Cite\|Klahr & Nigam\|2004}}) or in experiments focused on maintaining control of variables ({{Cite\|Dean & Kuhn\|2007}}).

	Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; {{Cite\|Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}) or historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), particularly those in which student models change to reflect the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}). When students represent natural phenomena with models, the model is not just a recording, but also a representation of selections and interpretations. Ethnography can also be an approach to modeling ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.		Science as modeling is rooted in refutations of positivism ({{Cite\|Duschl & Grandy\|2008}}; {{Cite\|Kuhn\|1962}}) and proposes that scientists invent and revise models to connect theory and the world ({{Cite\|Giere\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Hesse\|1962}}). Modeling may be central to laboratory tasks (e.g., {{Cite\|Clement\|1988}}; {{Cite\|Gentner & Gentner\|1983}}), historical studies ({{Cite\|Gooding\|1990}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian\|2008}}), or ethnography ({{Cite\|Dunbar\|1998}}; {{Cite\|Nersessian, Kurz-Milcke, Newsletter, & Davies\|2003}}) that generates idealizations of a working system in context.

	While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble (2002a)]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.		While model-based approaches to science education existed (e.g. {{Cite\|Hestenes\|1992}}; {{Cite\|Lesh & Doerr\|1998}}; {{Cite\|White & Frederiksen\|1998}}), Lehrer wished to focus on modeling practices with younger learners whose scientific participation was just emerging. Because modeling involves comparisons of representations to the world, Lehrer leveraged research on childrens' analogial reasoning ({{Cite\|Gentner & Toupin\|1986}}), thinking not only about models might be accessible to children, but which may best be generated and revised by the children themselves. Lehrer's professional development around modeling (Lehrer & Schauble, [[Lehrer & Schauble (2000)\|2000]], [[Lehrer & Schauble (2005)\|2005]]) focused on (a) arranging activity and opportunities for students to question and model a natural system and (b) the investigation of student thinking as students proposed, tested, and revised their models. The products of this professional development (e.g., {{Cite\|Lehrer & Curtis\|2000}}; [[Lehrer & Schauble (2002) investigating\|Lehrer & Schauble (2002a)]]; {{Cite\|Lucas, Broderick, Lehrer, & Bohanan\|2005}}), combined with cooperation with school administrators, fostered a professional community ({{Cite\|Gamoran, Anderson, Quiroz, Secada, Williams, & Ashmann\|2003}}) to support students' use of models.

			Lehrer's use of modeling with students initially focused on models that had some literal similarity ({{Cite\|Grosslight, Unger, Jay, & Smith\|1991}}) to the natural system, then transitioned towards models that focused more on the relations to the system and reflected the function of a phenomena instead of extraneous features ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Carpenter, Schauble, & Putz\|2000}}; {{Cite\|Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble\|1997}}). Other models attempt to recreate an environment on a smaller scale ({{Cite\|Lehrer, Schauble, & Lucas\|2008}}). Modeling often includes both individual and collective student work, with attempts to associate models to inquiry in the context of experience, centering epistemology in practice ({{Cite\|Sandoval\|2005}}). When students represent natural phenomena with models, the model is not just a recording, but also a representation of selections and interpretations.

	== Also ==		== Also ==