مدل‌سازی و دانش فرامدل‌سازی: سنجش درک دانش‌آموزان از مدل‌سازی مفهومی در یادگیری علوم

جهانی فر, مجتبی

doi:10.22034/jei.2023.350546.2390

مدل‌سازی و دانش فرامدل‌سازی: سنجش درک دانش‌آموزان از مدل‌سازی مفهومی در یادگیری علوم

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

مجتبی جهانی فر

استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکدۀ علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران

10.22034/jei.2023.350546.2390

چکیده

مدل‌ها ابزارهای تأثیرگذار در یادگیری علوم به‌شمار می‌روند و اگر شاگردان دربارۀ ماهیت مدل‌ها، هدف از مدل‌سازی و کاربرد آن‌ها در فرایند یادگیری فکر نکنند، این اثربخشی محدود خواهد بود. این پژوهش درپی کاوش نوع و سطح درک شاگردان دورۀ دوم متوسطه از مدل و دانش فرامدل‌سازی در دروس فیزیک، شیمی و زیست‌شناسی است. در این پژوهش کمّی ـ توصیفی، نمونۀ در دسترس530 نفر از دانش‌آموزان دورۀ دوم متوسطه، به‌منظور پاسخ‌گویی به پرسش‌نامۀ بررسی میزان دانش مدل‌سازی (مدل شایستگی مدل) انتخاب شدند. به‌منظور تحلیل داده‌ها از مدل سؤال ـ پاسخ امتیاز پاره‌ای استفاده شد. یافته‌ها نشان داد که شاگردان در درجۀ اول، به مدل‌های عینی و عملکردی فکر می‌کنند و مدل‌های انتزاعی (نمودار یا معادله) در درجۀ دوم اهمیت‌ قرار دارند. دانش مدل‌سازی و آگاهی از کارکرد و اهداف مدل‌ها از حوزۀ محتوایی مستقل نیست و به دنبال آن، نوع و کاربرد مدل‌ها به محتوا و درس بستگی دارد؛ به‌گونه‌ای که شاگردان از مدل‌سازی در زیست‌شناسی بیشتر به‌منظور توصیف پدیده‌ها و در فیزیک و شیمی به‌منظور پیش‌بینی و استدلال بهره می‌بردند. پیشنهاد می‌شود در برنامۀ درسی علوم به مدل و دانش مدل‌سازی در محتوای درسی توجه بیشتر شود و مهارت‌های فراشناختی شاگردان برای تشخیص، کاربرد، بازبینی و ارزیابی مدل‌ها توسعه داده شود. همچنین معلمان علوم به استفادۀ آگاهانه از مدل‌سازی در فرایند تدریس تشویق شوند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Modeling and knowledge of meta-modeling: Assessing students' understanding of conceptual modeling in science learning

نویسنده [English]

Mojtabā Jahānifar

(PhD), Shahid Chamrān University of Ahvāz, Ahvāz, Iran

چکیده [English]

Models are valuable tools for learning science, however, their utility would be restricted if students do not consider the nature of models, their purpose, and their implementation in the learning process. The focus of this research was to find out about the type of model and meta-modeling knowledge of second cycle high school students on physics, chemistry, and biology courses. The research sample consisted of 530 second cycle high school students who were selected through convenience sampling method to answer the modeling knowledge questionnaire. Partial credit question-answer model was used to analyze the data. Findings showed that students think primarily about objective and functional models, and abstract models (diagram or equation) are of secondary importance. Modeling knowledge and awareness of the function and objectives of models are not independent from the content area, and the type and application of models depend on the content and the course, in such a way that students use modeling in biology more to describe phenomena and in physics and chemistry for prediction and reasoning. It is suggested that in the science curriculum more attention should be paid to the model and modeling knowledge in the course's content, and the students' metacognitive skills should be developed to identify, apply, revise, and evaluate models. Science teachers should also be encouraged to consciously use modeling in the teaching process.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Science Education
Modeling Knowledge
Meta-modeling
Partial Credit Model

مراجع

Akerson, V.L., White, O., Colak, H., Pongsanon, K. (2011). Relationships Between Elementary Teachers’ Conceptions of Scientific Modeling and the Nature of Science. In M. Khine, and I. Saleh, (eds) Models and Modeling: Cognitive Tools for Scientific Enquiry (vol 6, pp. 221-237). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0449-7_10.
Bock, R. D., & Gibbons, R. D. (2021). Item Response Theory. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781119716723.
Bond, T. G., Yan, Z., & Heene, M. (2021). Applying the rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences (Fourth). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780429030499.
Coll, R. K., & Lajium, D. (2011). Modeling and the Future of Science Learning. In M. Khine, and I. Saleh, (eds) Models and Modeling: Cognitive Tools for Scientific Enquiry (vol 6, pp. 3-21). Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-94-007-0449-7_1
Desjardins, C. D., & Bulut, O. (2020). Handbook of Educational Measurement and Psychometrics Using R. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/b20498
Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., & Rosenfeld, S. (2016). High school students’ meta-modeling knowledge. Research in Science Education, 46, 787-810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9480-z
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338
Gobert, J. D., O’Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B. C., Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Examining the relationship between students’ understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 653-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003720671
Gobert, J. D., & Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering Students’ Epistemologies of Models via Authentic Model-Based Tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jost.0000019635.70068.6f
Gogolin, S., & Krüger, D. (2018). Students’ understanding of the nature and purpose of models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1313–1338. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21453
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–822.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280907
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884
Krell, M., Reinisch, B., & Krüger, D. (2015). Analyzing Students’ Understanding of Models and Modeling Referring to the Disciplines Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Research in Science Education, 45(3), 367–393. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11165-014-9427-9
Krell, M., & Krüger, D. (2016). Testing Models: A Key Aspect to Promote Teaching Activities Related to Models and Modelling in Biology Lessons? Journal of Biological Education, 50(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2015.1028570
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296272
Miller, S. G. (2016, 15 July). Why the Olympics Actually Won't Cause Zika to Spread Everywhere Four countries are at risk, however, according to a new U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-olympics-actually-won-t-cause-zika-to-spread-everywhere
Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20400
Nering, M. L., & Ostini, R. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of polytomous item response theory models. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861264
Nielsen, S. S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2021). A Competence-Oriented Approach to Models and Modeling in Lower Secondary Science Education: Practices and Rationales Among Danish Teachers. Research in Science Education, 51, 565–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09900-1
Odenbaugh, J. (2005). Idealized, inaccurate but successful: A pragmatic approach to evaluating models in theoretical ecology. Biology and Philosophy, 20(2–3), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-004-0478-6
Passmore, C., Gouvea, J., & Giere, R. (2014). Models in science and learning science: Focusing scientific practice on sense-making. In Matthews, M. (eds), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp. 1171–1202). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_36
Penfield, R. D. (2004). The Impact of Model Misfit on Partial Credit Model Parameter Estimates. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5(2), 115–128.
Schwarz, C., Reiser, B. J., Acher, A., Kenyon, L., & Fortus, D. (2012). MoDeLS. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions (pp. 101–137). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-824-7_6
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
Svoboda, J., & Passmore, C. (2013). The Strategies of Modeling in Biology Education. Science and Education, 22(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9425-5
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066485
Upmeier zu Belzen, A., & Kruger, D. (2010). Modellkompetenz im Biologieunterricht [Model competence in biology lessons]. Zeitschrift fu¨ r Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften [Journal of science education], 16, 41 – 57.
Wade-Jaimes, K., Demir, K., & Qureshi, A. (2018). Modeling strategies enhanced by metacognitive tools in high school physics to support student conceptual trajectories and understanding of electricity. Science Education, 102(4), 711–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21444
Zwickl, B. M., Finkelstein, N., & Lewandowski, H. J. (2013). The process of transforming an advanced lab course: Goals, curriculum, and assessments. American Journal of Physics, 81(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4768890