Understanding the Role of Wonderment Questions Related to Activation of Conceptual Resources in Scientific Model Construction: Focusing on Students' Epistemological Framing and Positional Framing

과학적 모형 구성 과정에서 나타난 사고 질문의 개념적 자원 활성화의 이해 -인식론적 프레이밍과 위치 짓기 프레이밍을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2016.05.25
  • Accepted : 2016.06.16
  • Published : 2016.06.30


The purpose of this study is to explore how students' epistemological framing and positional framing affect the role of wonderment questions related to the activation of conceptual resources and to investigate what contexts affect students' framings during scientific model construction. Four students were selected as focus group and they participated in collaborative scientific model construction of mechanisms relating to urination. According to the results, one student whose framings were "understanding phenomena" and "facilitator" asked wonderment questions, but the others whose framings were "classroom game" and "non-respondent" were not able to activate their conceptual resources. However, they were able to activate their conceptual resources when they shared the epistemological framing of "understanding phenomena" and shifted between the positional framings of "facilitator" and "respondent." Although they were able to activate their conceptual resources, these activated resources were not able to contribute to their model when they shifted to the framings of "classroom game" and "receiver." In contrast, when students constantly shared an "understanding phenomena" framing and dynamically shifted between the framings of "facilitator" and "respondent," they were able to activate various conceptual resources and develop their group model. The students' framings were affected by the contexts. These included: when students were confronted with cognitive difficulties and were not provided proper scaffolding; when the teacher played the role of answer provider and guided the activity with correctness; when there were several possible explanatory models that students could choose from; and when the teacher played the role of thought facilitator. This study contributes to supporting teaching and learning environments for productive scientific model construction.


Framing, Epistemological framing;Positional framing;Wonderment question;Conceptual resources;Scientific model construction


  1. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.
  2. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.
  3. Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2015). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi:10.1002/tea.21257
  4. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of research in science teaching, 37(2), 109-138.<109::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-7
  5. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549.
  6. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
  7. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908.
  8. Clement, J. J. (2008). Student/teacher co-construction of visualizable models in large group discussion. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 11-22). Springer Netherlands.
  9. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.
  10. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students' epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, (pp. 409-434). Cambridge University Press.
  11. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483.
  12. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1982). Understanding Student Learning, London: Croom Helms: NY: Nichols Publishing Co.
  13. Gilbert, J. K., Pietrocola, M., Zylbersztajn, A., & Franco, C. (2000). Science and education: Notions of reality, theory and model. In J. K. Gilbert and C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 19-40). Springer Netherlands.
  14. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. NY: Harper & Row.
  15. Greeno, J. G. (2009). A theory bite on contextualizing, framing, and positioning: A companion to Son and Goldstone. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 269-275.
  16. Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1316-1325.
  17. Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 3: manifold cognitive resources. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 321-340). Bologna: Italian Physical Society
  18. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  19. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp.89-120). Greenwich, CT: information Age Publishing.
  20. Harre, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.), (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of international action. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
  21. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science education, 80(5), 509-534.<509::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-F
  22. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
  23. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506-524.
  24. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or" doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  25. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57-68.
  27. MacLachlan, G., & Reid, I. (1994). Framing and interpretation. Portland, OR: Melboume University Press.
  28. Maskill, R., & de Jesus, H. P. (1997). Pupils' questions, alternative frameworks and the design of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(7), 781-799.
  29. Oh (2015). A Theoretical Review and Trial Application of the 'Resources-Based View' (RBV) as an Alternative Cognitive Theory. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 973-986.
  30. Passmore, C., Stewart, J., & Cartier, J. (2009). Model-Based Inquiry and School Science: Creating Connections. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 394-402.
  31. Philips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, D Hymes, & V. John (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  32. 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.
  33. Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Clement, J., & Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2008). An instructional model derived from model construction and criticism theory. In J. J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 23-43). Springer Netherlands.
  34. Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 1-63). Italian Physical Society: Italy.
  35. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261-292.
  36. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge based questioning by children. Cognition and instruction, 9(3), 177-199.
  37. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & 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.
  38. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393-429.
  39. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. NY: Oxford University Press.
  40. Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp.57-76). New York: Oxford University Press.
  41. van de Sande, C. C., & Greeno, J. G. (2012). Achieving alignment of perspectival framings in problem-solving discourse. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 1-44.
  42. Lee, Yun, & Kim. (2015). Exploring Small Group Argumentation and Epistemological Framing of Gifted Science Students as Revealed by the Analysis of Their Reponses to Anomalous Data. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education. 35(3), 419-429.


Grant : BK21플러스

Supported by : 서울대학교