Epistemic Discourses and Conceptual Coherence

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Asli Sezen-Barrie	--	3656	2023-05-17 20:39:02	\|
2	update references and layout	Rita Xu	-19 word(s)	3637	2023-05-18 05:50:13	\| \|
3	update layout	Rita Xu	-1 word(s)	3636	2023-05-19 08:33:01	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/educsci13050496

Engaging students in epistemic and conceptual aspects of modeling practices is crucial for phenomena-based learning in science classrooms.

explanatory models climate science epistemic discourse

1. Introduction

Models are significant tools for making sense of our world and what lies beyond. In modern science, models are critical for learning, developing, evaluating, and communicating scientific knowledge ^[1]^[2]. Scientists develop and use models for a variety of purposes, such as theoretical exploration, explanation, and prediction ^[3]^[4]. For decades, models have been a vehicle for learning science in K-12 classrooms and have been a topic of research in science education ^[5]^[6]^[7]. Modeling practice regained a new emphasis in science education when a framework for K-12 Science Education ^[8] and the Next Generation Science Standards ^[9] suggested modeling as one of the key scientific practices that help students make sense of scientific phenomena. These two documents recommend a progressive use of models and modeling across all K-12 grades that develops from drawings of simple diagrams at the earliest grades to multimodal representations of complex or abstract phenomena.

Despite the increased attention to the role of models in student learning and authentic engagement in science, in many classrooms, the development and use of modeling practices are limited to routinized activities, including drawing components of a cell or writing the steps of an insect’s life cycle ^[10]. While these routinized activities can serve to accomplish the goals of traditional schooling ^[11], they might not help students understand how scientists make sense of scientific phenomena by engaging in modeling ^[12]. Long-standing research on modeling suggests a change in students’ roles in the modeling process. Scholars recommend a shift from students’ passive use of models as simple representations to students’ active use of models, such as figuring out phenomena through social interaction in the classroom environment (e.g., ^[5]^[7]^[13]). This active involvement is achieved by highlighting the epistemological aspects of the modeling practice in science classrooms where students act as producers and evaluators of scientific knowledge. Emphasis on epistemic aspects of the modeling practice requires students’ meaningful engagement where they are active participants in constructing and iteratively revising models based on evidence (e.g., ^[13]^[14]^[15]).

In order to successfully develop curricula and professional learning materials to align with this vision, there is a need to understand how students develop models through iterative revisions in the reality of science classrooms ^[16]. Authentic classroom environments can be a platform for showing challenges to the implementation of research-based ideas. In addition, the unique background of students can help researchers to identify diverse ways of student participation in the construction of knowledge through modeling practice. To this end, researchers worked with 14 classes where students engaged in constructing explanatory models. Explanatory models are tools that provide students opportunities to communicate their initial conceptions and integrate and revise these ideas with evidence collected through investigations, observations, and credible resources to gain explanatory power. These models can include inscriptional and written discourses to explain how and why phenomena occur ^[17]^[18]. The explanatory models were a critical part of a module on the impacts of climate change, and students worked to develop models that explained the impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide on oyster larvae.

The NGSS became the first set of national standards in the U.S. that made climate change an explicit topic to be taught in classrooms ^[9]. This focus on climate change in the standards was timely as the scientific consensus is that climate change is real, and the increase in atmospheric CO₂ due to the burning of fossil fuels is the main reason for the recent climatic change (e.g., ^[19]). Despite strong evidence, climate change is still represented as a controversial topic by the media ^[20] and most classroom teachers ^[21]. Understanding climate change claims requires background knowledge from various disciplines due to its interdisciplinary nature ^[22]. For example, when making sense of the impacts of ocean acidification on marine life, one needs to understand ocean chemistry, the biological cycle of marine animals, and the economic impacts on fisheries. Supporting evidence or positions of climate change require a systems thinking approach to understand the relationships between these and other interdisciplinary components ^[23]. Due to its complex (assumed) controversial nature, making sense of climate change claims creates a unique challenge. To tackle this challenge in their classrooms, teachers need guidance and supporting materials. In order to design activities and supporting materials, it is critical to start with an exploration of how students model climate-change-related phenomena in their classrooms.

2. Modeling as an Epistemic Practice of Science and in Science Classrooms

Scientists work within the norms of their disciplines that are socially agreed upon by the members of that discipline ^[24]. The epistemic nature of scientific practices emphasizes how scientists work within the cultural norms of their disciplines to construct scientific explanations ^[25]^[26]. Gouvea and Passmore ^[27] assert that a shift in K-12 classrooms toward emphasizing epistemic goals is particularly important for the practice of developing and using models. The traditional use of models in science classrooms reflects the known components of scientific phenomena (i.e., models of), such as students imitating the structure of DNA by focusing on its representational nature. Instead, Gouvea and Passmore ^[27] suggest a modeling practice in classrooms where there is a focus on learning the functions and relationships of the components of DNA, and in which the model is a tool for relationship building to explore and explain the nature of scientific phenomena (i.e., models for). The focus on the latter (models for), helps students understand the epistemic functions of the models. These epistemic functions help students understand how scientists develop, evaluate, and represent evidence through their models ^[28]. Researchers argue that shifts such as these (where students collectively work towards epistemic goals) require an immense amount of instructional support ^[29], and teachers need support to learn to scaffold these instructional environments ^[30]. Despite these calls for an instructional shift toward epistemic understanding, researchers found that the modeling practice where students actively contribute to the development of the models (models for) has rarely been integrated into science classrooms in elementary and middle schools. Most models continue to be used as illustrative or communicative devices (models of) that do not incorporate students’ contributions ^[7]. Researchers therefore chose to build researchers' module around the use of explanatory models that allow students to integrate their ideas (models for) to support their learning regarding the impact of climate change.

To support teachers and students in developing high quality explanatory models in science classrooms, it is crucial to understand the epistemic norms highlighted in what are characterized as “good models” in scientific disciplines ^[31] (p. 486). Philosophers of science found that good models are evidenced-based and have explanatory power, with appropriate details and complexity of ideas that are directly related to the topic studied (e.g., ^[32]^[33]^[34]^[35]). Most effective models also communicate a variety of modes of representation, such as pictures, diagrams, and tables (e.g., ^[34]^[36]), to sequence and connect ideas ^[37] and integrate data ^[38].

Learning progression studies on the modeling practice contribute to another important area of research that informs the epistemic aspects of the modeling practice for science classrooms ^[39]^[40]^[41]. These studies provide a framework that can be used by teachers to engage their students in epistemic considerations. These considerations include how well student models use evidence relevant to the claim, how coherently they explain the related scientific phenomena, how diverse semiotic tools (e.g., written or drawn discourses) are utilized to effectively communicate to audiences, and how a model is revised to improve its explanatory or predictive power. In addition, these studies highlight how models can represent a variety of scientific phenomena that are meaningfully connected for a coherent explanation. Bamberger and Davis’ study ^[39] provided a framework where models progressed from static representations of visible components of a phenomenon to mechanistic representations where both the visible and invisible features were used to explain the relationships and processes related to the phenomenon. In the mechanistic models, students also showed comparisons of different situations, such as models of the smell of air fresheners in warmer and cooler temperatures, and specifically labeled representations to clarify abstract components of models, such as labeling the air modules.

For successful mechanistic models, it is important to allow students to use multiple representations (e.g., drawing, writing) in communicating their ideas ^[42]^[43]. Drawn models have shown advantages in promoting creative ways of expressing scientific ideas and relationships between the ideas. The drawn models can also remove language barriers, resulting in a more equitable and inclusive learning tool ^[44]. While written models tend to be more restricted in the ways ideas can be expressed, written information on models with drawings can enhance the clarity of the drawn representations ^[45]. To respond to the unique learning demands of individual students, researchers suggest giving students the freedom to select the form of their expression ^[44]. Students who can take advantage of using different modes of representation can have the opportunity to show a “deeper understanding” of phenomena ^[46] and develop epistemic agency while taking part in shaping knowledge construction on the models ^[29].

Despite more than a decade of research on epistemic aspects of modeling practices, teachers and students still hold a limited understanding of this practice. Therefore, they struggle to engage in modeling as an epistemic practice where their initial ideas and observed evidence are iteratively built into a mechanistic model. The student models often lack the representation of abstract components and the connections between ideas to show a coherent explanation ^[16]^[47]. Researchers propose that an in-depth analysis of student-developed models can provide insight into why teachers and students continue to struggle with attending to the epistemic aspects of modeling in science classrooms.

3. Engaging in Models for a Systems Thinking Approach to Climate Change

The climate crisis is one of the top concerns for today’s youth ^[48]. The youth are already experiencing the impacts of climate change in their daily lives and are exposed to conflicting claims about the causes and impacts of the changing climate ^[49]. While NGSS positioned science classrooms as a space where the youth can learn about climate change, such instruction is limited due to a lack of teacher education and knowledge regarding the complexity of the issue ^[21]. Understanding complex climate-related phenomena requires a systems thinking approach that attends to the interconnectedness of the ecological systems and living things ^[50]. While there is not a single definition of systems thinking, Senge ^[51] defines it as a “framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static ‘snapshots’” (p. 68). Adding on to this definition, Davidz and Nightingale ^[52] view systems thinking as an approach to analyze, interpret, and understand these interrelationships and patterns, rather than their pieces and parts ^[53]. By seeing the world as a whole, systems thinking provides a means to tackle the world’s most complex problems from interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives ^[54], and using a systems thinking approach to solve complex issues in today’s world requires multidisciplinary knowledge. For example, experts in economics, life sciences, bioengineering, sociology, and psychology work together to improve public health ^[55]. Similarly, many disciplines and stakeholders are involved in climate adaptation. While climate data collected by scientists over the years are critical in determining climate action, these data sets will only translate to meaningful adaptation plans when human and social systems are considered ^[56].

Due to the abstract nature of many system components and interrelationships, qualitative and quantitative modeling are both practices that can help scientists in making systems thinking visible ^[57]. While qualitative models may help learners grasp initial concepts ^[58] and explain system-wide phenomena ^[59], quantitative models can be used to focus on mathematical relationships that predict the behavior of the system ^[60]. The framework ^[8] and the NGSS ^[9] highlight the importance of studying systems and the modeling of these systems as some of the key crosscutting concepts for K-12 science education. The performance expectations of NGSS across K-12 grades draw attention to systems at different scales, e.g., from the circulatory system to the ecosystem, and highlight the importance of scaffolding students as they learn about these systems with their boundaries. The framework ^[8] suggests that students show their understanding of a system and raise questions about the system while engaging in the modeling practice. Further, “student-developed models may reveal problems or progress in their conceptions of the system, just as scientists’ models do” (p. 94). Drawing from the framework’s focus on systems modeling, NGSS highlighted some performance expectations that call for designing activities where models are used to explore and explain systems. These performance expectations were implemented across various disciplines of science, including the ones related to Earth Sciences. For example, middle school science (standard 2–6) expects students to engage in modeling to investigate the “unequal heating and rotation of the Earth” and its impacts on “patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation that determines regional climates”.

4. Discussions and Future Implications

Building coherent and gapless explanations is crucial for rigorous scientific learning ^[61]^[62]. Explanatory models can be used as a tool to promote students’ cohesive explanations and provide them with feedback on the construction of these explanations ^[15]. The iterative process of explanatory models offers opportunities for epistemic learning, such as supporting or revising ideas with competing evidence. Despite the suggested use of ‘models for’ to support students’ conceptual and epistemic learning, there is a concern that the traditional use of modeling (models of), persists in many classrooms. This limits the role of modeling to visualization and memorization of system components. Researchers looked at how students used explanatory models to construct evidence-based explanations about how ocean acidification affects oyster development. The modeling process was scaffolded through a series of activities that provided evidence for the key ideas needed to build an explanation to answer the driving question. Based on the findings from 14 classes, researchers rarely saw student models with ‘Extensive’ explanations that attended to all key ideas with evidence from multiple resources. Furthermore, the majority of the student models showed insufficient explanations that were missing key ideas and references to the related evidence. In order to unpack what leads to models with extensive explanations, or their lack thereof, researchers developed a coding scheme to qualitatively look at the conceptual elements and epistemic discourses across all 150 explanatory models.

4.1. Scaffolding Students for Engagement in Epistemic Aspects of Modeling

For several decades, research has suggested that eliciting students’ reasoning and ideas is more effective than the traditional school science approach of knowledge transmission ^[63]. However, recent studies on modeling, where students actively present their ideas, suggest that many teachers struggle with this approach and are not able to effectively support their students in identifying and connecting ideas to the scientific phenomena that models aim to explain ^[16]. In addition to struggling to attend to the specific ideas and explanations that students bring to their models, teachers are also limited in their capacity to provide critical feedback to improve student learning about the scientific phenomena and the modeling practice. Researchers suggest that the coding framework they developed in this research can be used as a feedback tool for teachers to formatively assess and scaffold students’ progress during the modeling practice. As the framework is aligned with integrated three-dimensional science learning ^[8], it directly supports the NGSS-aligned ^[9] curriculum design. In developing the coding framework, researchers first looked at ‘Key Ideas Based on Evidence’ related to the disciplinary core ideas being taught (such as ‘pH and Acidification’ in the module) along with ‘Discourse Modality of Evidence’ (i.e., how students’ modeling practice presents evidence from their student-driven investigations [e.g., ‘Data Table’, ‘Drawn’]). Second, researchers decided to highlight students’ use of ‘Systems Thinking’ approaches (e.g., connections to the atmosphere, other living organisms) as it is a crosscutting concept that strengthens the explanation of scientific phenomena. Third, to explore the epistemic aspects of the modeling practice, researchers examined how students used ‘Scientific Representations’ that are epistemic discourses specific to scientific disciplines in the form of language or symbols ^[64]. Specifically, researchers looked at how students used scientific representations, grounded in specialized epistemic discourses, such as arrows, to show processes or symbols for chemical molecules. Researchers suggest that teachers or teacher educators can use these categories as a guide to developing a framework to support students on the iterative revisions of models that seek to explain other phenomena. Using this framework, teachers can follow students’ evolving understanding of the key ideas and identify the related evidence students use in developing extensively coherent explanations of the phenomena being studied. In addition, focusing on how students make decisions around which ‘Scientific Representations’ they use can provide opportunities for classroom discussions on epistemic cultures of scientific disciplines that develop norms around when and how to implement these scientific representations.

In scaffolding the development of conceptual understanding of key ideas in students, it may be important to consider the types of activities in which students are engaged. Key ideas that were integrated into explanatory models are most frequently related to activities where students are socially engaged in practices of science. For example, in the activity that focused on the key idea of ‘pH and Acidification’, students designed their own protocols to answer the investigative question while making decisions as a group. This activity also involved students analyzing and interpreting data in groups or pairs. Key ideas that mostly relied on readings and videos as major sources for the activity, such as ‘Oysters Filter Water,’ were present less often in explanatory models and appeared in fewer instances.

4.2. Diverse Discourse Modes for Building Cohesive Models

The findings from this research contribute to the literature on the diversity of discourse modalities students choose to communicate their ideas. Previous research highlighted the richness of students’ use of multiple literacies that are critical for learning and participating in science ^[65]. Scholars suggest that the use of both written and drawn modalities improves deeper thinking, epistemic agency, and clarity of explanations. These scholars also highlight that written text can help improve the clarity of drawn models and provide a sequential logic to scientific processes. Further, models that allow multiple representations can be a more equitable and inclusive assessment tool for science classrooms ^[14] as they provide space for students who might be challenged with one of the modalities. For example, writing in a logical and sequential manner in models can be demanding for emergent bilinguals. Students were encouraged to use a variety of discourse modes in building their explanatory model. The findings showed that most models were a combination of written and drawn modalities. It is important to note that both models with mostly ‘Drawn’ components and models with mostly ‘Written’ components can achieve extensive explanations. As can be seen in the examples provided in the findings, the textual information is most often used to name drawn images, explain processes, provide a sequence to events, and link different key ideas.

Beyond written text and drawing, researchers noticed that some students used another modality, ‘Data Tables’ that included data from their own investigations. In some cases, students complemented data tables with textual explanations and visual drawings. In the Ocean Acidification and Oysters module, students collected two sets of data: (1) during the student-designed investigation during the ‘Carbon Dioxide and pH’ activity and (2) during the ‘Carbonate Challenge’ activity. Researchers noticed that this use of a ‘Data Table’ as a modality was rare among the modalities chosen by students. While the role of data is significant in computational models, researchers see that explanatory models can be a tool to help students integrate what they learn from their data. Future studies can explore meaningful integrations and representations of data as a discourse modality in explanatory models. Data representations can help strengthen the evidence that supports the key ideas in the models.

4.3. Systems Thinking beyond Oceans and Oysters

The study tackles the process of learning about a critical climate change impact, ocean acidification. According to scientists, unprecedented changes in ocean acidification are related to past mass extinctions. The evidence is alarming scientists who claim recent changes in the oceans can lead to decreased populations of shellfish and then impact the food chain in the marine ecosystem ^[66]. Due to Earth’s complex environmental system, understanding this phenomenon requires focusing on a systems thinking approach. During professional learning with teachers, researchers encouraged teachers to make a connection between the atmospheric changes and changes in the oceans. Specifically, the researchers' goal was to support an understanding of how changing levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere lead to changing CO₂ levels and related changes in acidification levels in the oceans. The researchers' intention was to support students in learning about the impact on oyster development. The videos and readings showed limited connections to how other marine organisms and humans can be affected by the changing oceans and their impact on the food chain.

Despite the limited representation of a variety of species and their links to human ecologies, researchers saw that many student models communicated a decrease in the number and diversity of marine species beyond oysters. For instance, they drew or wrote about fish, algae, and clams. Some models depicted humans with reduced access to food sources and living in environments where there is less green space or clean water. Although researchers' materials did not highlight the impact on land animals and plants, researchers noticed that some students did attend to multispecies impacts and their relation to humans in their models. This finding reminds us that youth perceptions of climate injustice can move beyond the traditional anthropocentric view that exceptionally centers humans. Recent research on climate change emphasizes that these human-centric views of climate justice are no longer enough to attend to the climate emergency the world is witnessing today (e.g., ^[67]). These scholars therefore suggest a multispecies lens regarding climate justice that will acknowledge the past and future destruction of living and non-living things (e.g., animals, rivers) and consider the importance of the relationships researchers all require to thrive and overcome environmental grand challenges ^[68]. Inspired by this observation, researchers suggest that future research on modeling climate change impacts with a systems thinking approach consider a multispecies lens for a more inclusive understanding of the impacts of changing climate.

References

Gelfert, A. How to Do Science with Models: A Philosophical Primer; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016.
Gilbert, J.K. Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2004, 2, 115–130.
Bokulich, A. How scientific models can explain. Synthese 2011, 180, 33–45.
Edmonds, B.; Le Page, C.; Bithell, M.; Chattoe-Brown, E.; Grimm, V.; Meyer, R.; Montañola Sales, C.; Ormerod, P.; Root, H.; Squazzoni, F. Diuerent modelling purposes. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 2019, 22.
Passmore, C.; Stewart, J.; Cartier, J. Model-based inquiry and school science: Creating connections. Sch. Sci. Math. 2009, 109, 394–402.
Raghavan, K.; Glaser, R. Model–based analysis and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum. Sci. Educ. 1995, 79, 37–61.
Windschitl, M.; Thompson, J.; Braaten, M. Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Sci. Educ. 2008, 92, 941–967.
National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
Baek, H.; Schwarz, C.; Chen, J.; Hokayem, H.; Zhan, L. Engaging elementary students in scientific modeling: The MoDeLS fifth-grade approach and findings. In Models and Modeling: Cognitive Tools for Scientific Enquiry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 195–218.
Rudolph, J.L. Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Sci. Educ. 2003, 87, 64–79.
Ke, L.; Schwarz, C.V. Using epistemic considerations in teaching: Fostering students’ meaningful engagement in scientific modeling. In Towards a Competence-Based View on Models and Modeling in Science Education; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 181–199.
Lehrer, R.; Schauble, L. Cultivating Model-Based Reasoning in Science Education; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006.
Schwarz, C.V.; Passmore, C.; Reiser, B.J. Helping Students Make Sense of the World using Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, USA, 2017.
Windschitl, M.; Thompson, J.; Braaten, M. Ambitious Science Teaching; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020.
Guy-Gaytán, C.; Gouvea, J.S.; Griesemer, C.; Passmore, C. Tensions between learning models and engaging in modeling: Exploring implications for science classrooms. Sci. Educ. 2019, 28, 843–864.
Schwarz, C.V.; Reiser, B.J.; Davis, E.A.; Kenyon, L.; Achér, A.; Fortus, D.; Shwartz, Y.; Hug, B.; Krajcik, J. Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2009, 46, 632–654.
Windschitl, M.; Thompson, J. The modeling toolkit: Making student thinking visible with public representations. Sci. Teach. 2013, 80, 63–69.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C Above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; World Meteorological Organization.: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
Jang, S.M.; Hart, P.S. Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Glob. Environ. Change 2015, 32, 11–17.
Plutzer, E.; McCaffrey, M.; Hannah, A.L.; Rosenau, J.; Berbeco, M.; Reid, A.H. Climate confusion among US teachers. Science 2016, 351, 664–665.
Hadorn, G.H.; Hoffmann-Riem, H.; Biber-Klemm, S.; Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W.; Joye, D.; Pohl, C.; Wiesmann, U.; Zemp, E. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.
Ke, L.; Sadler, T.D.; Zangori, L.; Friedrichsen, P.J. Students’ perceptions of socio-scientific issue-based learning and their appropriation of epistemic tools for systems thinking. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2020, 42, 1339–1361.
Kelly, G. Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In Teaching Scientific Inquiry; Brill: Leiden, The Netharlands, 2008; pp. 99–117.
Knorr-Cetina, K.D. Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in science. Hist. Political Econ. 1991, 23, 105–122.
Knorr Cetina, K. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences make Knowledge; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
Gouvea, J.; Passmore, C. ‘Models of’versus ‘Models for’ Toward an Agent-Based Conception of Modeling in the Science Classroom. Sci. Educ. 2017, 26, 49–63.
Kelly, G.J. Methodological considerations for the study of epistemic cognition in practice. In Handbook of Epistemic Cognition; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 393–408.
Stroupe, D. Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Sci. Educ. 2014, 98, 487–516.
Crawford, B.A.; Capps, D.K. Teacher cognition of engaging children in scientific practices. In Cognition, Metacognition, and Culture in STEM Education: Learning, Teaching and Assessment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 9–32.
Pluta, W.J.; Chinn, C.A.; Duncan, R.G. Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 486–511.
Giere, R.N. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010.
Kuhn, T. The Essential Tension; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1977.
Goldman, A.I. Knowledge in a Social World; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999.
Solomon, M. Social Empiricism; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007.
Bishop, M.A.; Bishop, M.A.; Trout, J. Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment; Oxford University Press on Demand: Oxford, UK, 2005.
Machamer, P.; Darden, L.; Craver, C.F. Thinking about mechanisms. Philos. Sci. 2000, 67, 1–25.
Staley, K.W. Robust evidence and secure evidence claims. Philos. Sci. 2004, 71, 467–488.
Bamberger, Y.M.; Davis, E.A. Middle-school science students’ scientific modelling performances across content areas and within a learning progression. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2013, 35, 213–238.
Fortus, D.; Shwartz, Y.; Rosenfeld, S. High school students’ meta-modeling knowledge. Res. Sci. Educ. 2016, 46, 787–810.
Pierson, A.E.; Clark, D.B.; Sherard, M.K. Learning progressions in context: Tensions and insights from a semester-long middle school modeling curriculum. Sci. Educ. 2017, 101, 1061–1088.
Heijnes, D.; van Joolingen, W.; Leenaars, F. Stimulating scientific reasoning with drawing-based modeling. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2018, 27, 45–56.
Tytler, R. The Role of Visualisation in Science: A Response to “Science Teachers’ Use of Visual Representations” Science Teachers’ Use of Visual Representations, edited by Eilam, B. and Gilbert, J., Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer, 2014, VIII+ 338pp.,£ 90.00, ISBN 978-3-319-06525-0; Taylor & Francis: Singapore, 2021.
Zhai, X.; He, P.; Krajcik, J. Applying machine learning to automatically assess scientific models. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2022, 59, 1765–1794.
Tversky, B. Spatial schemas in depictions. In Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought; MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2001; Volume 79, p. 111.
Ainsworth, S. DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learn. Instr. 2006, 16, 183–198.
Cheng, M.-F.; Lin, J.-L.; Lin, S.-Y.; Cheng, C.-H. Scaffolding middle school and high school students’ modeling processes. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2017, 16, 207.
Frydenberg, E. My journey in coping research and practice: The impetus and the relevance. Educ. Dev. Psychol. 2020, 37, 83–90.
Sinatra, G.M.; Lombardi, D. Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 55, 120–131.
McGowan, V.C.; Bell, P. “I now deeply care about the effects humans are having on the world”: Cultivating ecological care and responsibility through complex systems modelling and investigations. Educ. Dev. Psychol. 2022, 39, 116–131.
Senge, P. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
Davidz, H.L.; Nightingale, D.J. Enabling systems thinking to accelerate the development of senior systems engineers. Syst. Eng. 2008, 11, 1–14.
Goldstone, R.L.; Wilensky, U. Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. J. Learn. Sci. 2008, 17, 465–516.
King, C.; Jiggins, J.; Coutts, J. Organisational Skills for Overcoming the Invisable Process Barriers to Ecological Sustainable Development (ESD). In Proceedings of the Management for Ecological Sustainability, Brisbane, Australia, September 1998; Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2000.
Leischow, S.J.; Milstein, B. Systems Thinking and Modeling for Public Health Practice; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; Volume 96, pp. 403–405.
Grossi, A.; Dinku, T. Enhancing national climate services: How systems thinking can accelerate locally led adaptation. One Earth 2022, 5, 74–83.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E.; Marathe, S.; Liu, L. Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. J. Learn. Sci. 2007, 16, 307–331.
Verhoeff, R.P.; Knippels, M.-C.P.; Gilissen, M.G.; Boersma, K.T. The theoretical nature of systems thinking. Perspectives on systems thinking in biology education. In Frontiers in Education; Frontiers Media SA: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 3, p. 40.
van Ravenzwaaij, J.; Olde Hartman, T.C.; Van Ravesteijn, H.; Eveleigh, R.; Van Rijswijk, E.; Lucassen, P. Explanatory models of medically unexplained symptoms: A qualitative analysis of the literature. Ment. Health Fam. Med. 2010, 7, 223.
Wilensky, U.; Reisman, K. Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—An embodied modeling approach. Cogn. Instr. 2006, 24, 171–209.
Reiser, B.J. What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards. In Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment; ETS: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; pp. 1–22.
Reiser, B.J.; Novak, M.; McGill, T.A.; Penuel, W.R. Storyline units: An instructional model to support coherence from the students’ perspective. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2021, 32, 805–829.
Rudolph, J.L. Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89, 803–821.
Smith, C.L.; Maclin, D.; Houghton, C.; Hennessey, M.G. Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cogn. Instr. 2000, 18, 349–422.
Ainsworth, S.; Prain, V.; Tytler, R. Drawing to learn in science. Science 2011, 333, 1096–1097.
Guinotte, J.M.; Fabry, V.J. Ocean acidification and its potential effects on marine ecosystems. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 2008, 1134, 320–342.
Tschakert, P.; Schlosberg, D.; Celermajer, D.; Rickards, L.; Winter, C.; Thaler, M.; Stewart-Harawira, M.; Verlie, B. Multispecies justice: Climate-just futures with, for and beyond humans. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2021, 12, e699.
Celermajer, D.; Chatterjee, S.; Cochrane, A.; Fishel, S.; Neimanis, A.; O’brien, A.; Reid, S.; Srinivasan, K.; Schlosberg, D.; Waldow, A. Justice through a multispecies lens. Contemp. Political Theory 2020, 19, 475–512.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Education, Scientific Disciplines

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Asli Sezen-Barrie

Mary K. Stapleton

Gili Marbach-Ad

Anica Miller-Rushing

View Times: 396

Update Date: 19 May 2023

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm