JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Characteristics of Group and Classroom Discussions in the Scientific Modeling of the Particulate Model of Matter
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
The Characteristics of Group and Classroom Discussions in the Scientific Modeling of the Particulate Model of Matter
Yang, Chanho; Kim, SooHyun; Jo, Minjin; Noh, Taehee;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
In this study, we investigated the characteristics of group discussion and classroom discussion in the scientific modeling of the particulate model of matter. 7th graders in Seoul participated in this study. We implemented science instructions based on the GEM cycle of scientific modeling. We analyzed the differences between group discussion and classroom discussion in three steps: exploring thoughts, comparing thoughts, and drawing conclusions. We also looked into the level of argumentations of the students in the modeling activities. The analysis of the results indicated that students generated a group model by extracting commonalities from each model of their group members, and then they evaluated and modified the group model by comparing the differences among the models in classroom discussion. The main step involved in group discussion was `exploring thoughts`, whereas in classroom discussion it was `comparing thoughts`. Although the levels of argumentation among the students were generally low, most students participated with enthusiasm, as they expressed their interest and had positive perception in the modeling activities. As a result, the modeling activities were found to have positive influences on concept development. Some suggestions to implement the modeling activities in science teaching effectively were discussed.
 Keywords
group discussion;classroom discussion;scientific modeling;GEM cycle;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Bottcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2010). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science & Education, 20(2), 103-140.

2.
Cho, H. S., & Nam, J. (2014). The impact of the argument-based modeling strategy using scientific writing implemented in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 583-592. crossref(new window)

3.
Cho, H. S., Nam, J., & Lee, D. (2014). The development of argument-based modeling strategy using scientific writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(5), 479-490. crossref(new window)

4.
Clement, J. (2008b). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.

5.
Clement, J. (2008a). Six levels of organization for curriculum design and teaching. In J. Clement, & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 255-272). Dordrecht: Springer.

6.
Clement, J., & Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2008). A competition strategy and other modes for developing mental models in large group discussion. In J. Clement, & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and science instruction (pp. 117-138). Dordrecht: Springer.

7.
Clement, J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Model based learning and science instruction. Dordrecht: Springer.

8.
Do, S. L. (2005). Emotion and classroom talk: Toward a model of affect in students' experiences of classroom discussion. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(1), 17-39.

9.
Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175-196. crossref(new window)

10.
Giere, R. N. (2001). A new framework for teaching scientific reasoning. Argumentation, 15(1), 21-33. crossref(new window)

11.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert, & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

12.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiplemodel use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352-381. crossref(new window)

13.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer.

14.
Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Science teachers' knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273-1292. crossref(new window)

15.
Kang, E., Kim, C.-J., Choe, S.-U., Yoo, J., Park, H.-J., Lee, S., & Kim, H.-B. (2012). Small group interaction and norms in the process of constructing a model for blood flow in the heart. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(2), 372-387. crossref(new window)

16.
Krajcik, J., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? Science Scope, 35(7), 6-8.

17.
Lee, S., Kim, C.-J., Choe, S.-U., Yoo, J., Park, H.-J., Kang, E., & Kim, H.-B. (2012). Exploring the patterns of group model development about blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group interaction. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(5), 805-822. crossref(new window)

18.
Lee, S., & Kim, H.-B. (2014). Exploring secondary students' epistemological features depending on the evaluation levels of the group model on blood circulation. Science & Education, 23(5), 1075-1099. crossref(new window)

19.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701-724. crossref(new window)

20.
Maia, P. F., & Justi, R. (2009). Learning of chemical equilibrium through modelling-based teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 603-630. crossref(new window)

21.
Mendonca, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2011). Contributions of the 'model of modelling' diagram to the learning of ionic bonding: Analysis of a case study. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 479-503. crossref(new window)

22.
Mendonca, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2013). The relationships between modelling and argumentation from the perspective of the model of modelling diagram. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2407-2434. crossref(new window)

23.
National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. In R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.), Committee on science learning, kindergarten through eighth Grade (pp. 129-210). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

24.
Nersessian, N. J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133-153). New York: Cambridge.

25.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. crossref(new window)

26.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodolou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347. crossref(new window)

27.
Park, H., Kim, H., Jang, S., Shim, Y., Kim, C.-J., Kim, H.,-B., ... Park, K.-M. (2014). Characteristics of social interaction in scientific modeling instruction on combustion in middle school. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 58(4), 393-405. crossref(new window)

28.
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. crossref(new window)

29.
Passmore, C., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535-1554. crossref(new window)

30.
Radinsky, J., Oliva, S., & Alamar, K. (2010). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 619-642.

31.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484. crossref(new window)

32.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., ... Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. crossref(new window)

33.
Shim, Y., Kim, C.-J., Choe, S.-U., Kim, H.-B., Yoo, J., Park, H., ... Jang, S. (2015). Exploring small group features of the social-construction process of scientific model in a combustion class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(2), 217-229. crossref(new window)

34.
Taylor, I., Barker, M., & Jones, A. (2003). Promoting mental model building in astronomy education. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1205-1225. crossref(new window)

35.
Yu, H. W., Cha, H. J., Kim, M. S., Ham, D. C., Kim, H. B., Yoo, J. H., ... Choe, S. U. (2012). Relation between the personal and social factors and the interacting role of science gifted students in social co-construction of scientific model class. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 22(2), 265-290. crossref(new window)

36.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967. crossref(new window)