Download here (set1)

Harnessing Technology to Promote Model-Based
Learning and Scientific Literacy
Janice Gobert
The Concord Consortium
[email protected]
mtv.concord.org
mac.concord.org
Making Thinking Visible is funded by the the National Science Foundation under grant
No. REC-9980600 awarded to Janice Gobert (Principal Investigator).
MAC is funded by the the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Dept. of Education
under a grant awarded to the Concord Consortium (IERI #0115699). Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the presenters and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation or the Dept. of Education.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
INE/IKIT themes addressed by Making
Thinking Visible
 Building on intuitive understandings--MTV does this; MAC leverages from physical
intuitions.
 Focus on idea improvement--MTV & MAC focuses on progressive model-building (White
& Frederiksen, 1990; Raghavan & Glaser, 1994; Gobert, 2000).
 Shared problem spaces as a basis for cross-age, cross-sector learning and knowledge
creation.—Shared problem spaces for cross-distance knowledge creation (MTV).
 Comprehending difficult text as a task for collaborative problem-solving--Scaffolding
difficult learning tasks (MTV & MAC). Other work on orienting tasks as a way to promote
deep understanding of text (Gobert & Clement, 1999; Gobert, 1997; Gobert, in prep.)
 Controlling time demands of on-line teaching and knowledge-building—Scaffolding
knowledge integration (model-building) and transfer (MTV & MAC).
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
What do we mean by scientific literacy?

The book Science for All Americans (late 80s)-party responsible for changing the way we think about
WHO gets educated in science.

If accessible to a broad range of learners, then how to make it so….focus on qualitative understanding of
causal relationships underlying scientific phenomena.

Knowledge in this form is more generative, transferable, and can be applied to everyday life which
important to making decisions that effect our everyday lives (e.g., radon testing) .

In addition to content knowledge, other aspects of scientific literacy are (Perkins, 1986):
•
Process skills (I.e., inquiry, evaluation of evidence, communication, etc.)
•
Understanding the nature of science- I.e., that it is a dynamic process and that the current understanding of
science is based our theories and methods with which we view them.
•
More recently, it has been argued that understanding the nature of models is an important aspect of
epistemology as well (Gobert & Discenna, 1996; Schwarz & White, 1998).
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Making Thinking Visible
~Summary
A large scale design study in which 2000 middle and high school students from
California and Massachusetts collaborated on-line about plate tectonic activity in
their respective location using
WISE.
The curriculum engaged students in many inquiry-oriented, model-based activities:
a) drew models of plate tectonic phenomena in their respective area using WISE;
b) wrote explanations of their models;
c) were scaffolded to critique their peers’ models;
d) revised their models based on this feedback;
e) discussed their own questions in an on-line forum.
Data analysis focussed on measuring content gains, epistemological gains, and
characterizing the nature of students’ models and model revisions, as well as their
discourse.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Grounded in research in Science Education and
Cognitive Science...
 based on students’ misconceptions of plate tectonics of both the inside structure of the
earth and of the causal mechanisms underlying plate tectonic-related phenomena
(Gobert & Clement, 1999; Gobert, 2000), as well as students’ knowledge integration
difficulties (Gobert & Clement, 1994). More on this…..
 emphasizes students’ active model-building and scaffolded interpretation of rich
visualizations (Kindfield, 1993; Gobert & Clement, 1999; Gobert, 2000; Gobert &
Buckley, in prep.) as strategies to promote deep learning. More on this…
 Implemented in WISE (Web-based Inquiry Science Environment) developed by Marcia
Linn & Jim Slotta at UC-Berkeley, which is based on 15 years of research in science
education (Linn & Hsi, 2000).
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Previous research on students’ misconceptions in
earth science in general…
 the earth as a cosmic body (Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992; Nussbaum, 1979,
Nussbaum & Novak, 1976; Sneider & Pulos, 1983);
 knowledge of rock-cycle processes (Stofflett, 1994);
 conceptions of earth and space as it relates to seasons and phases of the
moon, (Schoon, 1992; Bisard et al, 1994);
 sea floor dynamics (Bencloski and Heyl, 1985);
 earth’s gravitational field (Arnold, Sarge, and Worrall, 1995);
 misconceptions about mountain formation (Muthukrishna, et al., 1993); and
 modeling the geosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere (Tallon &
Audet, 1999);
 Specific research on understanding of the causes of earthquakes with both children
(Ross & Shuell, 1993) and adults (Turner, Nigg, & Daz, 1986), both yielded
significant misconceptions.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Pilot studies as background to design of
Making Thinking Visible curriculum….
Students’ learning difficulties in this domain yielded three main difficulties in
student’ model construction processes:

(1) problems with setting up a correct static model of the layers,

(2) difficulty understanding causal and dynamic information



(e.g., heat as causal in forming convection currents, or currents causing plate movement), and
(3) difficulties with the integration of several different types of knowledge including causal and
dynamic knowledge into a causal chain in order to build an integrated mental model of the
system.
 Each difficulty has different ramifications on model construction and revision
processes, as well as the transfer and inference-making afforded on the basis of the
model (for more detail, see Gobert, 2000).
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Typical models of structure of earth (Gobert, 2000)
Type 0= 10.6%, Type 1=89.4%
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Typical models of volcanic eruption;
4.25%, 61.6%, 29.8%, 4.25% respectively
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Other research literature….
In addition to students’ pre-instruction models in designing the unit, we (J.
Gobert, Jim Slotta, Amy Pallant) drew on current findings from:
 causal models (White, 1993; Schauble et al, 1991; Raghavan & Glaser, 1995),
 model-based teaching and learning (Gilbert, S., 1991; Gilbert, J. 1993);
 model revising (Clement, 1989; 1993; Stewart & Hafner, 1991);
 diagram generation and comprehension (Gobert, 1994; Gobert & Frederiksen,
1988; Kindfield, 1993; Larkin & Simon, 1987; Lowe, 1989; 1993),

the integration of text and diagrams (Hegarty & Just, 1993), and
 text comprehension (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983; Kintsch, 1998).
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Forms of Knowledge, Info Processing &
Cognitive Affordances
Knowledge comes in various forms; degree of visual isomorphism to the object being
represented is an important difference in terms of the information processing required
and the affordances of the knowledge form. Examples:
 textual representations, which describe in words various aspects of science phenomena
 diagrams/illustrations of static features of phenomena;
 models and simulations that attempt to show the dynamic, causal mechanisms as well as the
temporal features of a phenomenon.
 Textual representations offer the fewest cognitive affordances for learners and that
models and simulations, on the other hands, SHOULD offer the greatest number of
cognitive affordances for learners…..
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Student Difficulty in Learning from Models
But simply “adding” a diagram or a model does not facilitate understanding because:

it increased cognitive load on learners (Sweller, et al, 1990).
 students lack the necessary domain knowledge in order to guide their search processes
through diagrams/models in order to understand the relevant spatial, causal, dynamic,
and temporal information (Lowe, 1989; Head, 1984; Gobert, 1994; Gobert & Clement,
1999).
 Thus, students need scaffolding in order learn from models, in particular to
guide their search processes (all info is presented simultaneously), to support
perceptual cues afforded by models, support inference-making from these
perceptual cu es.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Model-Based Teaching & Learning
(Gobert & Buckley, 2000)
 Synthesis of research in cognitive psychology and science education
 Model-based learning as a dynamic, recursive process of learning by
constructing mental models of the phenomenon under study.
•
Involves formation, testing, and reinforcement, revision, or rejection of mental
models.
•
Requires modeling skills and reasoning during which mental models are used to
understand and create representations, generate predictions and explanations, and
transform knowledge from one representation to another as well as analyze data
and solve problems.
•
Analogous to hypothesis development and testing seen among scientists (Clement,
1989).
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Project Goal
 East and West coast Students’ collaborate on-line about the differences in
plate tectonic phenomena on-line using WISE (Web-based Inquiry Science
Environment; Linn & Hsi, 2000).
 In doing so, students develop…
 Content knowledge of the spatial, causal, dynamic, and temporal features underlying
plate tectonics.
 Inquiry skills for model-building and visualization.
 Epistemological understanding of the nature of scientific models.
See AERA and NARST papers from 2002-03 for these papers at mtv.concord.org
Demo unit
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Model-based activities and respective
scaffolding for unit: What’s on your plate?
 Draw, in WISE, their own models of plate tectonics phenomena.
 Participate in an on-line “field trip” to explore differences between the East and West
coast in terms of earthquakes, volcanoes, mountains (beginning with the most salient
differences).
 Pose a question about their current understanding (to support knowledge integration
and model-building)
 Learn about location of earth’s plates (to scaffold relationship between plate boundaries
anf plate tectonic phenomena).
 Reify important spatial and dynamic knowledge (integration of pieces of model) about
transform, divergent, collisional, and convergent boundaries.
 Learn about causal mechanisms involved in plate tectonics, i.e., convection &
subduction (scaffolded by reflection activities to integrate spatial, causal, dynamic, and
temporal aspects of the domain).
 Learn to critically evaluate their peers’ models which in turn serves to help them think
critically about their own models.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Model-based activities and respective
scaffolding for unit (cont’d)

Engage in model revision based on their peers’ critique of their model and what they have learned in the unit.

Scaffolded reflection task to reify model revision which prompt them to reflect on how their model was changed and
what it now helps explain. Prompts are:
 “I changed my original model of.... because it did not explain or include....”
 “My model now includes or helps explain…”
 “My model is now more useful for someone to learn from because it now includes….”

Reflect and reify what they have learned by reviewing and summarizing responses to the questions they posed in
Activity 3.

Transfer what they have learned in the unit to answer intriguing points:
 Why are there mountains on the East coast when there is no plate boundary there?
 How will the coast of California look in the future?
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Portfolio for one pair of students selected
for typical performance….
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Activity 1 (cont’d): Explain your model.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Activity 3: Pose A Question.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Activity 4: Earth’s Plates.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Activity 5: The Mantle.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Activity 6: Students’ Evaluation and
Critique of the Learning Partners’ Models.
2. Students’ Evaluation and
Critique of the Learning Partners’ Models
 Students read two pieces of text in WISE called “What is a Scientific Model? And
“How to evaluate a model?”
 Students critique learning partners’ models using prompts in WISE. Prompts include:
 1. Are the most important features in terms of what causes this geologic process depicted in this
model?
 2. Would this model be useful to teach someone who had never studied this geologic process
before?
 3. What important features are included in this model? Explain why you gave the model this
rating.
 4. What do you think should be added to this model in order to make it better for someone who
had never studied this geologic process before?
 Prompts were designed to get students to reflect on what causal features should be
included in the model and how useful the model was as a learning/communication tool.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
W. Coast group’s evaluation of E. coast
group’s model
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
E. Coast group’s revised model.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
E. Coast group’s revised explanation.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Notes on model revision.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Activity 8: What have we learned?
Volcanoes - Michela K., Scott C., Mike B.
Why do volcanoes erupt?
Respond - Ch ristina V, Peter D. , Eri K.
volacano s erup t because plates collide toge ther and the hot lava bus ts from t he ma ntle.
What happens to lava underwat er - Nick M., Lillian F., Filip Z.
What happens when the lava spills out und erwa ter? How qui ckly does it cool
Respond - Je ssica D., Alexand ra M., Colm G.
When the la va goe s into the oc ean, it cools and hardens causing new plant lif e because
the ashe s are ve ry reach in mi nerals and nutrients. A new step of an ocean floor is made.
Is the mantle and magma the same thing?- Laura C ., Alex Y.
Respond -Jona than S, Paul C, Eli zabe th V.
Magma is part of the mantle, the part of the mantle that is liquid
Why are some vo lcanoes dormint while some are active? Philip W., Jeff G, Christa
P.
Respond - Jona than S, Paul C, Eli zabe th V.
The a ctive one s are ove r plate rift s. In Hawaii , the isl ands were formed when the plate
they' re on drifted of a pocket of ma gma. It continued d rif ting, and soon many islands
were formed wher e the magma pocket happ end to be relative to the plate, when the
pocket erupted.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Part 1: Content Gain Results
 The students from one class on the West coast were partnered with the students from
two classes on the East coast because of the differences in class sizes. Five such sets or
“virtual classrooms” (referred to as WISE periods) were created in WISE.
 This is analysis of 360 students.
 A significant pre-post gain was found in all five WISE classrooms for content gains.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
WISE Period 1- sig. Content gains
Interaction Bar Plot for contentgain
Effect: Category for contentgain * teacher
8
Cell Mean
7
Fisher's PLSD for conte ntgain
Effe ct: te ache r
Signific ance Level: 5 %
6
5
A
4
S
Mean Di ff.
T
3
2
Crit. Di ff.
P-Val ue
A, S
-.32 2
1.1 30
.57 45
A, T
.64 3
1.1 10
.25 40
S, T
.96 4
1.2 52
.12 98
1
0
preCtot
postCtot
Cell
ANOVA Table for contentgain
DF Sum of Squares
teacher
Mean Square
F-Value
P-Value
Lambda Power
.998
.3745
1.996
.208
2
17.231
8.615
61
526.577
8.632
Category for contentgain
1
130.331
130.331
44.982
<.0001
44.982
1.000
Category for contentgain * teacher
2
22.548
11.274
3.891
.0257
7.782
.680
61
176.740
2.897
Subject(Group)
Category for contentgain * Subject(Group)
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
WISE Period 2- sig. Content gains
Interaction Bar Plot for c ontent gain
Effect: Category for c ontent gain * te ache r
7
6
Fisher's PLSD for conte nt ga in
Effe ct: te ache r
Signific ance Level: 5 %
Cell Me an
5
A
4
Mean Di ff.
S
3
T
2
Crit. Di ff.
P-Val ue
A, S
-1.9 71
1.3 07
.00 34
S
A, T
-1.6 03
1.3 07
.01 67
S
1.4 68
.62 09
S, T
.36 8
1
0
pre Ctot
po stCtot
Cell
ANOVA Ta ble for content gain
DF Sum of Squares
te ach er
Sub ject(Group)
2
10 2.22 9
Mean Squa re
51 .114
F-Value
P-Va lue
La mbda
Power
3.946
.0 246
7.891
.6 87
60
77 7.29 8
12 .955
Cate gory fo r co nten t ga in
1
11 5.69 5
11 5.69 5
39 .473
<.0001
39 .473
1.000
Cate gory fo r co nten t ga in * teacher
2
38 .791
19 .396
6.617
.0 025
13 .235
.9 11
60
17 5.86 0
2.931
Cate gory fo r co nten t ga in * Su bject(Group)
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
WISE Period 3- sig. Content gains
Interaction Bar Plot for c ontentgain
Effect: Category for c ontentgain * tea cher
7
6
Fisher's PLSD for conte ntgain
Effe ct: te ache r
Signific ance Level: 5 %
Cell Me an
5
A
4
Mean Di ff.
S
3
T
2
Crit. Di ff.
P-Val ue
A, S
-1.0 10
1.3 00
.12 67
A, T
-1.5 83
1.2 77
.01 55
S, T
-.57 4
1.4 48
.43 47
1
0
pre Ctot
po stCtot
Cell
ANOVA Table for contentgain
DF Sum of Squares
teacher
Mean Square
F-Value
P-Value
Lambda Power
2.525
.0883
5.050
.476
2
60.752
30.376
62
745.837
12.030
Category for contentgain
1
85.178
85.178
26.654
<.0001
26.654
1.000
Category for contentgain * teacher
2
98.937
49.469
15.480
<.0001
30.960
1.000
62
198.133
3.196
Subject(Group)
Category for contentgain * Subject(Group)
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
S
WISE Period 4 - sig. Content gains
Interaction Bar Plot for c ontentchange
Effect: Category for c ontentchange * teacher
7
6
Cell Me an
5
A
4
Fisher's PLSD for conte ntcha nge
Effe ct: te ache r
Signific ance Level: 5 %
Mean Di ff.
S
3
T
2
Crit. Di ff.
P-Val ue
A, S
-.78 4
1.3 85
.26 45
A, T
-2.0 83
1.3 60
.00 30
S, T
-1.2 99
1.5 43
.09 82
1
0
pre Ctot
po stCtot
Cell
ANOVA Table for contentchange
DF Sum of Squares
teacher
Mean Square
F-Value
P-Value
Lambda Power
3.898
.0254
7.796
.682
2
97.656
48.828
62
776.675
12.527
Category for contentchange
1
130.942
130.942
25.019
<.0001
25.019
1.000
Category for contentchange * teacher
2
59.218
29.609
5.657
.0055
11.315
.855
62
324.487
5.234
Subject(Group)
Category for contentchange * Subject(Group)
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
S
WISE Period 5 - sig. Content gains
Interaction Bar Plot for c ontent gain
Effect: Category for c ontent gain * te ache r
8
7
Fisher's PLSD for conte nt ga in
Effe ct: te ache r
Signific ance Level: 5 %
Cell Me an
6
5
A
4
S
Mean Di ff.
T
3
2
Crit. Di ff.
P-Val ue
A, S
-2.3 94
1.2 36
.00 02
S
A, T
-3.2 85
1.3 31
<.0 001
S
S, T
-.89 1
1.4 46
.22 48
1
0
pre Ctot
po stCtot
Cell
ANOVA Table for content gain
DF Sum of Squares
teacher
Mean Square
F-Value
P-Value
Lambda Power
13.509
<.0001
27.018
.999
2
256.450
128.225
60
569.514
9.492
Category for content gain
1
82.505
82.505
18.220
<.0001
18.220
.994
Category for content gain * teacher
2
107.916
53.958
11.916
<.0001
23.832
.997
60
271.692
4.528
Subject(Group)
Category for content gain * Subject(Group)
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Part 2: Epistemological Gain Results
 A significant pre-post gain was found in all five WISE classrooms for epistemological
gains.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
WISE Period 1 - sig. Epistemological gains
Interaction Bar Plot for m odelgain
Effect: Category for m odelgain * teac her
16
14
Cell Me an
12
10
A
8
S
Fisher's PLSD for mode lgain
Effe ct: te ache r
Signific ance Level: 5 %
Mean Di ff.
T
6
4
Crit. Di ff.
P-Val ue
A, S
1.0 12
1.5 71
.20 47
A, T
.51 1
1.5 43
.51 39
S, T
-.50 2
1.7 39
.56 92
2
0
pre Mtot
po stMtot
Cell
ANOVA Ta ble for modelga in
DF
Sum of Square s
2
22 .442
11 .221
61
98 8.92 6
16 .212
Cate gory fo r mod elga in
1
11 5.69 7
Cate gory fo r mod elga in * teacher
2
83 .882
61
43 9.83 7
7.210
te ach er
Sub ject(Group)
Cate gory fo r mod elga in * Su bject(Group )
Mean Squa re
F-Value
P-Va lue
.6 92
.5 044
1.384
.1 57
11 5.69 7
16 .046
.0 002
16 .046
.9 87
41 .941
5.817
.0 049
11 .633
.8 66
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
La mbda
Power
WISE Period 2 - sig. Epistemological gains
Interaction Bar Plot for m odelgain
Effect: Category for m odelgain * teac her
14
12
Fisher's PLSD for mode lgain
Effe ct: te ache r
Signific ance Level: 5 %
Cell Me an
10
A
8
S
6
Mean Di ff.
T
Crit. Di ff.
P-Val ue
A, S
.06 4
1.6 32
.93 80
4
A, T
-.28 9
1.6 32
.72 68
2
S, T
-.35 3
1.8 27
.70 28
La mbda
0
pre Mtot
po stMtot
Cell
ANOVA Ta ble for modelga in
DF
te ach er
Sum of Square s
Mean Squa re
F-Value
P-Va lue
Power
.0 79
.9 244
.1 58
.0 61
2
2.335
1.167
59
87 4.50 4
14 .822
Cate gory fo r mod elga in
1
31 1.40 1
31 1.40 1
40 .945
<.0001
40 .945
1.000
Cate gory fo r mod elga in * teacher
2
56 .782
28 .391
3.733
.0 297
7.466
.6 59
59
44 8.71 0
7.605
Sub ject(Group)
Cate gory fo r mod elga in * Su bject(Group )
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
WISE Period 3 - sig. Epistemological gains
Interaction Bar Plot for m odelchange
Effect: Category for m odelchange * te acher
14
12
Fisher's PLSD for mode lcha nge
Effe ct: te ache r
Signific ance Level: 5 %
Cell Me an
10
A
8
Mean Di ff.
S
6
T
4
Crit. Di ff.
P-Val ue
A, S
-.80 9
1.6 84
.34 37
A, T
.83 3
1.6 54
.32 07
S, T
1.6 42
1.8 76
.08 57
2
0
pre Mtot
po stMtot
Cell
ANOVA Ta ble for modelchange
DF
Sum of Square s
2
47 .195
23 .597
62
10 21.1 32
16 .470
Cate gory fo r mod elchang e
1
36 6.53 1
Cate gory fo r mod elchang e * te ach er
2
10 6.36 2
62
41 4.66 5
6.688
te ach er
Sub ject(Group)
Cate gory fo r mod elchang e * Sub ject(Group)
Mean Squa re
F-Value
P-Va lue
1.433
.2 464
2.866
.2 85
36 6.53 1
54 .803
<.0001
54 .803
1.000
53 .181
7.952
.0 008
15 .903
.9 58
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
La mbda
Power
WISE Period 4 - sig. Epistemological gains
Interaction Bar Plot for m odelchange
Effect: Category for m odelchange * te acher
14
12
Fisher's PLSD for mode lcha nge
Effe ct: te ache r
Signific ance Level: 5 %
Cell Me an
10
A
8
S
6
Mean Di ff.
T
Crit. Di ff.
P-Val ue
A, S
-.07 3
1.3 92
.91 80
4
A, T
-1.5 89
1.3 67
.02 31
2
S, T
-1.5 16
1.5 51
.05 52
La mbda
Power
0
pre Mtot
po stMtot
Cell
ANOVA Ta ble for modelchange
DF
te ach er
Sum of Square s
Mean Squa re
F-Value
P-Va lue
2.807
.0 681
5.614
.5 23
2
63 .678
31 .839
62
70 3.21 4
11 .342
Cate gory fo r mod elchang e
1
19 0.43 7
19 0.43 7
35 .768
<.0001
35 .768
1.000
Cate gory fo r mod elchang e * te ach er
2
65 .833
32 .917
6.182
.0 036
12 .365
.8 89
62
33 0.09 8
5.324
Sub ject(Group)
Cate gory fo r mod elchang e * Sub ject(Group)
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
S
WISE Period 5 - sig. Epistemological gains
Interaction Bar Plot for m odelchange
Effect: Category for m odelchange * te acher
14
12
Fisher's PLSD for mode lcha nge
Effe ct: te ache r
Signific ance Level: 5 %
Cell Me an
10
A
8
S
6
Mean Di ff.
T
Crit. Di ff.
P-Val ue
A, S
.70 1
1.6 31
.39 70
4
A, T
-.53 1
1.7 58
.55 10
2
S, T
-1.2 32
1.9 09
.20 40
F-Value
P-Va lue
La mbda
.8 40
.4 368
1.680
.1 81
0
pre Mtot
po stMtot
Cell
ANOVA Ta ble for modelchange
te ach er
Sub ject(Group)
Cate gory fo r mod elchang e
Cate gory fo r mod elchang e * te ach er
Cate gory fo r mod elchang e * Sub ject(Group)
DF
Sum of Square s
2
26 .202
Mean Squa re
13 .101
60
93 6.01 6
15 .600
1
44 4.67 6
44 4.67 6
75 .513
<.0001
75 .513
1.000
2
90 .227
45 .113
7.661
.0 011
15 .322
.9 50
60
35 3.32 5
5.889
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Power
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Comments on Example 1...
In this exa mple, the studen ts drew a model of volcanic eruption which includes only the
crustal l aye r of the earth; that is, the inside layers of t he e arth are no t depicted, nor are
there any internal causa l m echan is ms respons ible for vo lc anic erup tion includ ed in either
the mod el or exp lanation . This type a model is call ed a localΣ model and is consistent
wit h p revious research in this domain which showed that many studen ts of this age group
have models of plate tectonic phenom ena whic h on ly includ e processes on the surface of
the earth, i.e., they do not include the p rocesses and mechanisms inside the e arth (Gob ert,
2000). The correct conceptions that are represented in the model and /or exp lanation are:
hot magma , mov ement of magma beyond the vo lcanic cone , and magma formi ng n ew
rock. (For an exa mple of the cod ing scheme for vo lcanic eruption, see Append ix B.2).
The learning partnersΥcritique is very de tail ed in that it sugges ts that the stud entsΥmodel
need s labels, cause , plates, types of vo lcano , interior, exterior, and wha t the volcano was
doingΣ. The studen tsΥrevis ed model i ncludes some the le arning partner sΥ suggestions .
The revised model, include s plates and labels and the studen ts have elaborated on one
type of volcano as reques ted by their learning partners. More specifi call y, their
exp lana tion it appears the studen ts were trying to depict/describe vo lcanism due to plate
conve rgenc e 1. The studen ts have also included p late move ment and plate friction as
causal me chan isms responsible for vo lcanic eruption. Alt hough the revis ed model on ly
include s a few additi ona l causal mechanisms from the original, it is a significant advan ce
ove r their original model.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Comments on Example 2…..
In this exa mple the studen tsΥmodel r epresents a mi sconc eption, i. e., that a moun tain is
formed and fill s up w it h lava and wh en it fill s up, it erupts. Unfo rtuna tely, the learning
partnersΥcriti que d id not include much information upon which a revision could be
based; this is possibly due to them not know ing what to do in the case of an incorrectΣ
model. In the revised mod el and exp lana tion (which we assume is based on the content of
the uni t rather than the learning p artnersΥcriti que ), the studen ts have added plate
subdu ction and magma move ment as a cau sal mechanism in how vo lcanoes a re formed
and have a lso included the concep t of pressure as buil ding up wit hin the volcano . It is
important to no te that although their reasoning here is not entirely correct, intuiti ve
conc eptions such as pressure are rich, effective p ieces of know ledge that can be
effectively bu ilt upon (Clement, Brown, & Zietsma n, 1989) and are us able anchor s for
deve loping unde rstand ing o f convec tion (Gobert & Clement,1994). As such the revised
model represents gain in under stand ing.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Comments on example 3….
In this original model above (left), the studen ts had focus sed on the crustal laye r of the
earth and had not included wha t happens inside the earth when mount ains are formed;
that is , there is no structural info rmation o r caus al information about the inside of the
earth. Again, this is a localΣ model of plate tectonic pheno mena (Gobert, 2000) because
it does no t include any processes or me chan isms inside the earth. In the c riti que which
was done by their West coast partners, the learning partners requested that they label their
model. The revised mod el include s labels (as sugges ted); it i s also a much more detail ed
model, sugg esting that the studen ts learned a great deal from the content in t
WhatΥs
on your p late?Σ curriculum. Their new model include s the crustal layer as
t awayΣ
from t he c ross section view; it also includes convec tion as a causa l mechan ism in
mountain bu il ding (in the original model t her e were no c ausa l mechan isms included ).
The inclusion o f conv ection a s a cau sal mechan ism, the rela tionship of the conve ction to
the crustal move me nt and the location of the convec tion in the correct layers of the e arth
(the mantle), in their revis ed model represents a signif icant advance f rom their earlier
model (Gobert, 2000).
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Comments on Example 4….
In this exa mple, the studen tsΥoriginal model has two views: a cross section v iew, and a
crustal l aye r view. Their model and exp lana tion include no causal mechanisms in terms
of wha t happen s inside the earth when mountains are formed; thus , it i s a local model
(Gobert, 2000). In the criti que from their learning partnersΥ, it was sugg ested that the
students include the direction of move ment of the p lates. This is a high level co mment in
that it reflects that the reviewers kne w that this informa tion was important to the causalit y
of the system being depicted. The c ritique als o include s comments related to the model
as a communication tool, i. e., they sugge sted that the studen ts include a cross section
view rather than a bir dΥs eye view which is good comment rega rding the model as a
communication tool. The revised model includes the earth in cross section form with a
cut away that include s information about the plates moving toward each o ther . In addit ion
the studen ts have added the mantle as a cau sal mechanism. Alt hough no t a significant
advan ce from the poin t of view of including more detailed causa l information, the revised
model is a better model from a communication standpo int, as was requested by their
learning p artners.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
Conclusions
 Opportunities for collaboration with very different sectors of the populations
 Extends a current vein of progressive model-building in science education by having
students critique each others’ models as a way to promote deep understanding.
 In all modeling tasks (constructing models, learning from models, critiquing models,
revising models, etc), we are scaffolding this using our model-based learning
framework.
 This, authentic science experience promotes both deep understanding of the content as
well as promote a deep understanding of models in science and how they are used in
science.
 As such can significantly impact scientific literacy.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003
To found out more ...
 To view the unit, go to wise.berkeley.edu, click on Member entrance, and for
login enter “TryA1” and “wise” as your password. Click on “Plate Tectonics:
What’s on Your Plate?”
 To find more information…
 E-mail: [email protected] and get a copy of this paper.
 Other papers are available on this work at mtv.concord.org
 For more on The Concord Consortium contact www.concord.org.
Gobert, U of T, 10/2003