Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Pp. viii, 282. £3·50, paperback £1. 1970. (Cambridge University Press.)

The laboratory has been given a central and distinctive role in science education, and science educators have suggested that rich benefits in learning accrue from using laboratory activities. Twenty years have been elapsed since we published a frequently cited, critical review of the research on the school science laboratory (Hofstein & Lunetta, Rev. Educ. Res.52(2), 201–217, 1982). Twenty years later, we are living in an era of dramatic new technology resources and new standards in science education in which learning by inquiry has been given renewed central status. Methodologies for research and assessment that have developed in the last 20 years can help researchers seeking to understand how science laboratory resources are used, how students' work in the laboratory is assessed, and how science laboratory activities can be used by teachers to enhance intended learning outcomes. In that context, we take another look at the school laboratory in the light of contemporary practices and scholarship. This analysis examines scholarship that has emerged in the past 20 years in the context of earlier scholarship, contemporary goals for science learning, current models of how students construct knowledge, and information about how teachers and students engage in science laboratory activities. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed88:28–54, 2004; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/.sce10106

https://gpquae.iqm.unicamp.br/gtexperimentacao.pdf

The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century

In this review, we discuss (1) how the notion of conceptual change has developed over the past three decades, (2) giving rise to alternative approaches for analysing conceptual change, (3) leading towards a multiperspective view of science learning and instruction that (4) can be used to examine scientific literacy and (5) lead to a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning

/pdf/conceptual-change-a-powerful-framework-for-improving-science-1ttefwgzj7.pdf

Conceptual Change: A Powerful Framework for Improving Science Teaching and Learning

The purpose of this article is to review recent research on self-regulated learning and discuss the implications of this research for science education. We draw on examples of self-regulated learning from the science education literature to summarise and illustrate effective instructional methods and the development of metacognitive understanding (Gunstone; 1999a; Rickey & Stacy, 2000; White & Mitchell, 1994). We also focus on the crucial role that metacognition plays in self-regulation (Baird & White, 1996; Nichols, Tippins, & Wieseman, 1997; White, 1998). We divide our discussion into two main parts. The first focuses on three components of selfregulated learning, including cognition, metacognition, and motivation. We relate these aspects of self-regulation to current practices in science education. The second section focuses on six general instructional strategies for improving self-regulation in the science classroom. We focus on the use of inquiry based learning, the role of collaborative support, strategy and problem solving instruction, the construction of mental models, the use of technology to support learning, and the role of personal beliefs such as self-efficacy and epistemological world views. These instructional strategies are selected because they reflect extensive research agendas over the last decade within the science education literature and are essential to metacognition and self-regulation (Butler & Winne, 1995; Gunstone, 1999b).

Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning

Contents: J. Gale, Preface. Part I:Radical Constructivism and Social Constructionism. E. von Glasersfeld, A Constructivist Approach to Teaching. K.J. Gergen, Social Construction and the Educational Process. J. Shotter, In Dialogue: Social Constructionism and Radical Constructivism. J. Richards, Construct[ion/iv]ism: Pick One of the Above. Part II:Information-Processing Constructivism and Cybernetic Systems. F. Steier, From Universing to Conversing: An Ecological Constructionist Approach to Learning and Multiple Description. R.J. Spiro, P.J. Feltovich, M.J. Jacobson, R.L. Coulson, Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext: Random Access Instruction for Advanced Knowledge Acquisition in Ill-Structured Domains. K. Tomm, Response to Chapters by Spiro et al. and Steier. P.W. Thompson, Constructivism, Cybernetics, and Information Processing: Implications for Technologies of Research on Learning. Part III:Social Constructivism and Sociocultural Approaches. H. Bauersfeld, The Structuring of the Structures: Development and Function of Mathematizing as a Social Practice. J.V. Wertsch, C. Toma, Discourse and Learning in the Classroom: A Sociocultural Approach. C. Konold, Social and Cultural Dimensions of Knowledge and Classroom Teaching. J. Confrey, How Compatible Are Radical Constructivism, Sociocultural Approaches, and Social Constructivism? Analysis and Synthesis I: Alternative Epistemologies. M.H. Bickhard, World Mirroring Versus World Making: There's Gotta Be a Better Way. Part IV:Alternative Epistemologies in Language, Mathematics, and Science Education. R. Duit, The Constructivist View: A Fashionable and Fruitful Paradigm for Science Education Research and Practice. G.B. Saxe, From the Field to the Classroom: Studies in Mathematical Understanding. N.N. Spivey, Written Discourse: A Constructivist Perspective. T. Wood, From Alternative Epistemologies to Practice in Education: Rethinking What It Means to Teach and Learn. E. Ackermann, Construction and Transference of Meaning Through Form. D. Rubin, Constructivism, Sexual Harassment, and Presupposition: A (Very) Loose Response to Duit, Saxe, and Spivey. Part V:Alternative Epistemologies in Clinical, Mathematics, and Science Education. E. von Glasersfeld, Sensory Experience, Abstraction, and Teaching. R. Driver, Constructivist Approaches to Science Teaching. T. Wood, P. Cobb, E. Yackel, Reflections on Learning and Teaching Mathematics in Elementary School. P. Lewin, The Social Already Inhabits the Epistemic: A Discussion of Driver Wood, Cobb, and Yackel and von Glasersfeld. J. Becker, M. Varelas, Assisting Construction: The Role of the Teacher in Assisting the Learner's Construction of Preexisting Cultural Knowledge. E.H. Auerswald, Shifting Paradigms: A Self-Reflective Critique. Analysis and Synthesis II: Epsitemologies in Education. P. Ernest, The One and the Many. Analysis and Synthesis III: Retrospective Comments and Future Prospects. L.P. Steffe, Alternative Epistemologies: An Educator's Perspective. J. Gale, Epilogue.

教育中的建构主义 = Constructivism in Education

Modelling is the essence of thinking and working scientifically. But how do secondary students view science models? Usually as toys or miniatures of real-life objects with few students actually understanding why scientists use multiple models to explain concepts. A conceptual typology of models is presented and explained to help teachers select models that are appropriate to the conceptual ability of their students. The article concludes by recommending that teachers model scientific modelling to their students, encourage the use of multiple models in science lessons, progressively introduce sophisticated models, systematically present in-class models using the Focus, Action and Reflection (FAR) guide and socially negotiate all model meanings.

A typology of school science models

This interview-based study probed 48 Grade 8–10 students' mental models of atoms and molecules and found that many of these students preferred models that are both discrete and concrete. Modeling is a powerful skill that defines much of the scientific method; however, most younger science students have difficulty separating models from reality. Language that is common to both biology and chemistry (e.g., nucleus and shells) is a major source of confusion for some students. Several students concluded that atoms can reproduce and grow and that atomic nuclei divide. Electron shells were visualized as shells that enclosed and protected atoms, while electron clouds were structures in which electrons were embedded. These, and other alternative conceptions may be generated during discussion as a result of semantic differences between teacher and student language. Students expressed a strong preference for space-filling molecular models and their conceptions of the models used in chemistry reveal much about the difficulties that students face as they try to assimilate and accommodate scientific ideas, and terminology. It is recommended that teachers develop student modeling skills and that they discuss analogical models, including shared and unshared attributes, with their students. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry

Analogical models are frequently used to explain science concepts at all levels of science teaching and learning. But models are more than communicative tools: they are important links in the methods and products of science. Different analogical models are regularly used to teach science in secondary schools even though little is known about how each student's mental models interact with the various models presented by teachers and in textbooks. Mounting evidence suggests that students do not interpret scientific analogical models in the way intended, nor do they find multiple and competing models easy to understand. The aim of this study is summarized in the research question: How can students' understanding of the multiple models used to explain upper secondary chemistry concepts be enhanced? This study qualitatively tracked ten students' modeling experiences, intellectual development, and conceptual status throughout grade 11 as they learned about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds. This article reports in detail a year-long case study. The outcomes suggest that students who socially negotiated the shared and unshared attributes of common analogical models for atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds, used these models more consistently in their explanations. Also, students who were encouraged to use multiple particle models displayed more scientific understandings of particles and their interactions than did students who concentrated on a “correct” or best analogical model. The results suggest that, when analogical models are presented in a systematic way and capable students are given ample opportunity to explore model meaning and use, their understanding of abstract concepts is enhanced. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed84:352–381, 2000.

Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry

This article examines the research literature on conceptual change, analyzes the different uses of the term “conceptual change,” and discusses six other issues that have emerged from this literature. The second part of this study outlines a multidimensional framework for considering conceptual change events in the classroom and attempts to synthesize various perspectives of contemporary conceptual change research by proposing that changes in students' knowledge structures be viewed from epistemological, ontological, and social/affective perspectives. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed81:387-404, 1997.

A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom

This book brings together powerful ideas and new developments from internationally recognised scholars and classroom practitioners to provide theoretical and practical knowledge to inform progress in science education. This is achieved through a series of related chapters reporting research on analogy and metaphor in science education. Throughout the book, contributors not only highlight successful applications of analogies and metaphors, but also foreshadow exciting developments for research and practice. Themes include metaphor and analogy: best practice, as reasoning; for learning; applications in teacher development; in science education research; philosophical and theoretical foundations. Accordingly, the book is likely to appeal to a wide audience of science educators –classroom practitioners, student teachers, teacher educators and researchers.

Allan G. Harrison

Papers

A typology of school science models

Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry

Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry

A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom

Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education