preservice elementary teachers' evaluations of elementary students' scientific models: an...

This article was downloaded by: ["University at Buffalo Libraries"]On: 05 October 2014, At: 06:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Preservice Elementary Teachers'Evaluations of Elementary Students'Scientific Models: An aspect ofpedagogical content knowledge forscientific modelingMichele M. Nelson a & Elizabeth A. Davis aa Department of Educational Studies , School of Education,University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , MI , USAPublished online: 27 Jul 2011.

To cite this article: Michele M. Nelson & Elizabeth A. Davis (2012) Preservice Elementary Teachers'Evaluations of Elementary Students' Scientific Models: An aspect of pedagogical content knowledgefor scientific modeling, International Journal of Science Education, 34:12, 1931-1959, DOI:10.1080/09500693.2011.594103

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.594103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500693.2011.594103

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.594103

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Preservice Elementary Teachers’

Evaluations of Elementary Students’

Scientific Models: An aspect of

pedagogical content knowledge for

scientific modeling

Michele M. Nelson∗ and Elizabeth A. DavisDepartment of Educational Studies, School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, MI, USA

Part of the work of teaching elementary science involves evaluating elementary students’ work.

Depending on the nature of the student work, this task can be straightforward. However,

evaluating elementary students’ representations of their science learning in the form of scientific

models can pose significant challenges for elementary teachers. To address some of these

challenges, we incorporated a modeling-based elementary science unit in our elementary science

teaching methods course to support preservice teachers in gaining knowledge about and

experience in evaluating students’ scientific models. In this study, we investigate the approaches

and criteria preservice elementary teachers use to evaluate elementary student-generated

scientific models. Our findings suggest that with instruction, preservice elementary teachers can

adopt criterion-based approaches to evaluating students’ scientific models. Additionally,

preservice teachers make gains in their self-efficacy for evaluating elementary students’ scientific

models. Taken together, these findings indicate that preservice teachers can begin to develop

aspects of pedagogical content knowledge for scientific modeling.

Keywords: Pre-service; Modeling; Primary school

Introduction

Elementary school teachers are noted for being subject matter generalists. As part of

their everyday work, elementary teachers teach lessons in very different subject areas;

International Journal of Science Education

Vol. 34, No. 12, August 2012, pp. 1931–1959

∗Corresponding author. Horizon Research, Inc., 326 Cloister Ct., Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA.

Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/121931–29

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.594103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

from math to health, reading to social studies, and everything in between. To properly

prepare future elementary teachers for this range of responsibilities, teacher education

programs emphasize subject-specific pedagogies as part of required teaching methods

courses in the core academic subject areas: math, language arts, social studies, and

science. In elementary science teaching methods courses, preservice elementary tea-

chers learn principles and practices conducive to effective science teaching and thus,

student learning in science. One artifact that can be used to assess students’ science

learning is their scientific models. Here, models serve as visual representations of

the students’ understandings of the science being portrayed. Therefore, teachers

can gain valuable insights into student learning by carefully analyzing these forms

of student work. However, skillful evaluation of elementary students’ scientific

models is not an obvious or intuitive practice for preservice elementary teachers. In

this study, we examine four preservice elementary teachers’ developing scientific

model evaluation practices during the semester of their undergraduate elementary

science teaching methods course.

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

Authentic scientific practices in teaching and learning science are central to ongoing

reforms within science education (American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1993, 2009; Ford & Wargo, 2007; National Research Council, 1996,

2010). Recently, scientific modeling has received increasing attention as an instru-

mental pedagogy in the inquiry-oriented teaching and learning of science (Kenyon,

Schwarz, & Hug, 2008; Schwarz, 2009; Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten,

2008a). In scientific modeling-based instructional approaches, students engage in

many authentic scientific practices by creating and using representations of their

understandings of science concepts in the form of scientific models. Scientific

models are two- or three-dimensional representations that highlight the central fea-

tures and key relationships among components of a simplified system or scientific

phenomena for the purposes of understanding, communicating, and/or generating

predictions about the system or phenomena in question (e.g., Gilbert & Boulter,

2001; Harrison & Treagust, 2000). After they construct models, students use the

models for communicative and sense-making purposes, evaluate the model’s fitness

according to a set of criteria related to its purpose, and revise the model to better

align with those evaluation criteria. Taken together, model construction, use, evaluation,

and revision comprise the elements of modeling practice. Modeling practice is a non-

linear, iterative approach to learning science content, in which students take an

active, evidence-based role in reshaping their own conceptual understandings of the

science content (Schwarz et al., 2009). At the same time, students gain experience

with multiple authentic procedural aspects of learning and doing science, including

making sense of data, generating and revisiting predictions, and engaging in scientific

argumentation, consistent with science education standards and reform-oriented

goals for students’ science learning. Thus, incorporating a focus on scientific model-

ing into a typical elementary science methods course provides rich opportunities for

1932 M. M. Nelson and E. A. Davis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

preservice elementary teachers to engage in multiple authentic scientific practices

themselves, and to explore and develop proficiency in engaging children in those

same scientific practices. While not the only choice science educators might make,

adding an emphasis on scientific modeling provides numerous affordances for

supporting novices in becoming well-started beginning science teachers.

In order to teach science using often unfamiliar modeling-based approaches,

preservice teachers must learn what scientific modeling entails and learn how to

apply this knowledge for pedagogical purposes (Justi & van Driel, 2005; Kenyon,

Davis, & Hug, 2011; Windschitl, 2003; Windschitl & Thompson, 2006). Supporting

students’ active engagement in their own science learning using modeling-based ped-

agogies is demanding work, particularly for beginning teachers (Crawford & Cullin,

2004; De Jong, van Driel, & Verloop, 2005; Schwarz, 2009). In addition to helping

students understand the content, teachers must also help students develop under-

standings about the nature of scientific models and modeling practice. For

example, when working with a model of the solar system, students should recognize

that the three-dimensional model represents the order of the planets relative to the

sun, and they should also form understandings about the nature of this representation

as a scientific model—namely, that the model need not be an accurate scalar represen-

tation in order to be a useful learning tool, and that the model can be revised on the

basis of new understandings and scientific evidence, as was recently demonstrated by

the changed status of Pluto. In essence, then, teachers must help students understand

not only factual and conceptual aspects of the science content involved, but also help

students see how scientific models and modeling can be useful in developing and

enhancing their own science content understandings.

Another key element of effective, model-centered science teaching is teacher self-

efficacy (Bandura, 1997) for teaching using modeling-based pedagogies. In other

words, teachers need to believe that they are capable of successfully teaching

science using modeling-based pedagogies to achieve desired student learning out-

comes. Preservice elementary teachers often need extensive support in developing

self-efficacy for science teaching in general, for a variety of reasons including low

confidence in their science content knowledge and lack of familiarity with inquiry-

oriented science pedagogies (Bleicher, 2004, 2006; Howitt, 2007; Schoon &

Boone, 1998; Sherman & MacDonald, 2007; Watters & Diezmann, 2007). Scientific

modeling is one such inquiry-oriented science pedagogy that is typically new to

preservice teachers, but with carefully designed methods course experiences, they

can become more familiar with what scientific modeling and modeling-based

pedagogies entail (Crawford & Cullin, 2004; Justi & van Driel, 2005; Kenyon

et al., 2011; Schwarz, 2009; Windschitl & Thompson, 2006; Windschitl, Thompson,

& Braaten, 2008b).

Part of effectively using scientific modeling in a teaching capacity involves the ability

to interpret, evaluate, and assess student-generated scientific models. Understandings

about the nature and purposes of scientific models and modeling practice, collectively

termed ‘metamodeling knowledge’ (Schwarz & White, 2005), ground the critique of

student-generated scientific models. Teachers must therefore consider students’

Preservice Teachers’ Scientific Model Evaluations 1933

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

scientific models along several dimensions. For example, teachers must assess stu-

dents’ models for evidence of accurate content understanding as well as evidence of

student understandings about what constitutes a scientific model and whether the

model fulfills its intended purpose. In order to effectively evaluate students’

models, teachers must have an idea of the relevant criteria with which they are evalu-

ating model quality, including model clarity, salience, and consistency with empirical

evidence (Schwarz et al., 2009). They must also have an idea of the pertinent learning

goals, with respect to the science content and inquiry processes associated with scien-

tific models and modeling practice. Finally, teachers need also consider the student’s

model in light of what can reasonably be expected of the student developmentally. In

other words, teachers must be able to look at a student’s scientific model and be able

to simultaneously evaluate it along a variety of dimensions, including using scientific

model evaluation criteria, assessing progress toward desired learning outcomes, and

keeping in mind the guiding principles of metamodeling knowledge (Kenyon et al.,

2011; Schwarz et al., 2009a). Recognition, articulation, and successful execution of

scientific modeling practices in pedagogical capacities are foundational to further

development of specialized teacher knowledge and skills in these areas (Smithey,

2007).

This self-assured ability to evaluate learners’ scientific models is an aspect of a larger

construct that we call ‘pedagogical content knowledge for scientific modeling’, or

PCK for scientific modeling (Schwarz, Meyer, & Sharma, 2007). The notion of

PCK for scientific modeling builds upon the theoretical and practical work of many

others, both in science education and in education more broadly (e.g., Grossman,

1990; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999; Shulman, 1986; van Driel, De Jong, &

Verloop, 2002). Magnusson and colleagues have described pedagogical content

knowledge in science teaching as consisting of five components: orientations toward

science teaching, knowledge and beliefs about science curriculum, knowledge and

beliefs about students’ understanding of specific science topics, knowledge and

beliefs about assessment in science, and knowledge and beliefs about instructional

strategies for teaching science. Each component can be considered using scientific

modeling as a lens. Table 1 depicts the scientific modeling analogs of Magnusson

and colleagues’ five components of PCK for science teaching.

For example, PCK-SM entails knowledge and beliefs about when and how scientific

modeling-based instructional strategies are warranted and beneficial for teaching

science. Additionally, PCK-SM for modeling-based instructional strategies in science

entails the tacit component of self-efficacy for effectively employing these pedagogies

to promote student learning. Others have described teacher knowledge and beliefs

about science teaching involving scientific modeling with respect to several of Magnus-

son and colleagues’ five components of PCK in science teaching (Crawford & Cullin,

2004; Justi & Gilbert, 2002; Justi & van Driel, 2005; Schwarz et al., 2007; van Driel

& De Jong, 2001). Here, we build upon this knowledge base as we focus on four pre-

service teachers’ changing knowledge, scientific model evaluation skills, and self-

efficacy for evaluating scientific models as aspects of their developing PCK-SM for

evaluating students’ scientific models (indicated in bold on Table 1).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

The following research questions guided the study’s design, execution, and data

analysis:

(1) How do preservice elementary teachers evaluate elementary students’ scientific

models?

and

(2) How do preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy for model

evaluation change during the elementary science teaching methods semester?

Table 1. Components of PCK for science teaching and PCK for scientific modeling

Component of PCK for

science teaching (from

Magnusson et al., 1999)

PCK for scientific modeling

(PCK-SM) analog

What does this element of PCK-

SM include?

Orientations toward science

teaching

Orientations toward science

teaching using scientific

modeling

Teacher-directed, learner-directed,

activity-based, etc., orientations in

the use of scientific modeling

pedagogies

Knowledge and beliefs about

science curriculum


scientific modeling in science

curriculum

Knowledge and beliefs about:

when scientific modeling is

appropriate for the curriculum; how

to incorporate scientific modeling

into curricula (for which topics,

using which modeling practices,

etc.)


students’ understanding of

specific science topics


students’ understanding of

scientific modeling


students’ understanding of science

content represented in scientific

models; students’ understanding of

scientific modeling practices,

epistemology, and nature of

scientific models (meta-modeling

knowledge); how to interpret and

critique students’ scientific models


assessment in science


assessment in science using

scientific modeling


how to assess students’ content and

scientific practice knowledge using

modeling strategies; when to use

scientific modeling to assess

students’ understanding of content

and scientific practices


instructional strategies in

science


instructional strategies in

science using scientific modeling


when and how to use scientific

modeling instructionally; when and

how to support students in learning

about scientific modeling


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Methods

Context

The study was conducted as part of an elementary science teaching methods course

for undergraduates pursuing initial elementary teacher certification. As part of this

methods course, and to become familiar with scientific modeling, preservice teachers

experienced a modified version of an elementary science unit focussed on evaporation

and condensation using an inquiry-oriented, scientific modeling-based approach (see

Kenyon et al., 2008). Briefly, preservice teachers observed evaporation and conden-

sation in the context of a solar still made out of a modified 2 liter plastic bottle covered

with plastic wrap, containing a reservoir for the collection of purified condensate from

‘dirty’ water (see depictions in Figs. 1, 2, and 4). Using the solar still and other experi-

ences with the phenomena, preservice teachers created their own scientific models of

evaporation and condensation in the form of drawings. Preservice teachers were then

introduced to scientific model evaluation as a means to analyze and prompt revision of

initial models, with an emphasis on three core, inter-related criteria: consistency with

empirical evidence (i.e., does the model match the data?), sense-making (i.e., does the

model make sense to the user?), and communicative power (e.g., clarity, complete-

ness, etc.) of the models. Other model evaluation criteria, including generativity

and proper use of scientific terminology, were briefly presented as additional criteria

for consideration. Model evaluation using criteria was revisited and reinforced several

times in the methods course.

Participants

Preservice elementary teachers who participated in this study were in their third seme-

ster of a four-semester teacher preparation program at a large midwestern university

in the USA. Four preservice teachers were purposefully selected on the basis of their

initial ideas about scientific models (i.e., a range of responses to a pretest item) to par-

ticipate in all aspects of this study. These case study preservice teachers were typical of

the larger cohort of preservice elementary teachers in terms of age and ethnicity (i.e.,

they were Caucasian and approximately 21 years old), and in terms of the data in this

study. None majored or minored in science, and all had a language arts emphasis

(concentration or minor concentration) as part of their undergraduate teacher edu-

cation. Three of the four focal preservice teachers were placed in local second-

grade classrooms, and the other focal preservice teacher was placed in a local fifth-

grade classroom for the third-semester teaching practicum.

For one data source, all 35 preservice teachers enrolled in an undergraduate

elementary science teaching methods course and contributed written data. These

data were included to illustrate cohort-wide patterns in the use of model evaluation

criteria. The first author taught scientific modeling elements of the course and

worked with preservice teachers in the field. The second author was the lead course

instructor, and instructed roughly half the 35-member cohort, but was not the instruc-

tor for any of the four case study teachers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Data Sources

The primary data sources consisted of one-on-one interviews with the focal four pre-

service elementary teachers in this study and written mid-semester model evaluation

homework assignments from all 35 preservice teachers in the methods course, includ-

ing the four focal preservice teachers. Interviews with preservice elementary teachers

were conducted prior to and following methods course instruction about evaluation of

scientific models. In these interviews, preservice teachers were asked to carry out

‘think aloud’ evaluations of elementary student-generated scientific models (Ericsson

& Simon, 1980). Two elementary-student generated scientific models of evaporation

and condensation in a solar still were labeled ‘Model 1’ and ‘Model 2’ in both pre- and

post-interviews. These models are presented in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Student model 1 of evaporation and condensation in a solar still

Figure 2. Student model 2 of evaporation and condensation in a solar still


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Figure 3 presents the student-generated model of germ transmission that was used

in the post-interview (Piko & Bak, 2006, p. 649), as described below.

For each student-generated model, preservice teachers were first asked to provide a

verbal evaluation of the student’s work and then reflect on the criteria used to evaluate

the student models. Evaporation and condensation models were used in both pre- and

post-interviews to establish comparable model evaluation data. To measure self-

efficacy for model evaluation, preservice teachers were also asked to share how they

felt about their model evaluations in initial and final interviews. The germ

transmission model was used solely in the post-interview and served as an evaluable

student-generated scientific model in a novel content area. Pre- and post-interview

protocols are provided in the appendix.

Written data consisted of a portion of a mid-semester homework assignment in

which preservice teachers were asked to evaluate the model shown in Figure 4

(with the instructions provided to them).

The models in Figures 1, 2, and 4 were selected from a set of elementary student-

generated models of evaporation and condensation in a solar still (Schwarz et al.,

2009). We chose these models because they offered visually very different examples

of student work that could be readily critiqued using model evaluation criteria dis-

cussed in the methods course.

Data Coding and Analysis

Data from interview transcripts and written model evaluations were coded to capture

scientific model evaluation criteria stressed in the methods course, as well as emergent

model evaluation criteria. Table 2 illustrates the codes used in coding these data.

A subset of the interview transcript and written model evaluation data was coded by

another researcher and the results were tested for inter-rater reliability. Initial com-

parisons indicated greater than 80% agreement in assigned codes, and discrepancies

in data coding were resolved through discussion (Porter, 2006). Due to the relatively

small sample sizes (n ¼ 4 and n ¼ 35), statistical analyses were not conducted.

Figure 3. Student model of germ transmission [taken from Piko & Bak (2006), p. 649]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Interview questions specific to preservice teacher self-efficacy for model evaluation

yielded data that were coded and analyzed comparatively for each preservice teacher.

Self-report statements of a preservice teacher’s confidence in her initial model evalu-

ations were compared with similar self-report statements from that preservice tea-

cher’s final model evaluations.

Coded data were analyzed to identify themes and trends within and across individ-

uals for the various data sources (Borman, Clarke, Cotner, & Lee, 2006; Yin, 2006).

For example, coded data from each preservice teacher’s written model evaluation

were compiled and compared in aggregate to identify trends in criterion usage

among preservice teachers. Similarly, coded data from each interview item for each

preservice teacher were compared with coded data for other interview items for the

same preservice teacher, as well as being compared with coded data for the same inter-

view item for other preservice teachers to identify intra- and inter-individual themes

and trends, respectively.

Findings

The four focal preservice teachers varied in their knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy

with respect to scientific model evaluation. Overall, our findings suggest that each pre-

service teacher evolved uniquely in her model evaluation skills and criteria of empha-

sis. Despite these individual differences, we found that the four focal preservice

teachers broadened their understanding of scientific modeling-based pedagogies

and made gains in their self-efficacy for evaluating student-generated scientific

models. Additionally, we found that across the entire group of 35 preservice teachers,

model evaluations tended to stress model evaluation criteria that were emphasized

during methods course instruction. In the following narratives, we describe each

Figure 4. Methods course assignment instructions and student model of evaporation and

condensation in a solar still. As a final component of this assignment, consider the following

student model of evaporation and condensation and provide both an evaluation of the model and

any feedback you would give the student


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

preservice teacher’s changing knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy for evaluating

scientific models at several points during the elementary science teaching methods

course.

Arielle. Arielle was a language arts major and math minor in the School of Edu-

cation, and her practicum placement was a local second-grade classroom.

Initial verbal model evaluations. At the beginning of the semester, Arielle’s first

evaluation of a student-generated scientific model of evaporation and condensation

Table 2. Coding scheme for model evaluation criteria

Code Explanation/example

Sense-makinga Preservice teacher refers to the explanatory power of the model and/or

mentions sense-making on the part of the model creator or audience. For

example, ‘the model allows the user to make sense of what happens in the

solar still’

Communicationa Preservice teacher mentions model clarity, completeness, and/or

explicitly mentions communication in the model evaluation. For

example, ‘the model clearly communicates the student’s ideas about

evaporation’

Consistency with

evidenceaPreservice teacher comments on the scientific accuracy of the model

and/or how the model is supported by empirical data. For example, ‘this

model does not show condensation on the plastic wrap, which the

student observed in the experiment’

Aesthetics and features Preservice teacher mentions any or all of the following model criteria/components: neatness, artistic quality, arrows, labels, key, zoom view,

title, and internal consistency. For example, ‘this model is neatly labeled’

Generativity Preservice teacher refers to model generalizability, model-based

predictions, model applications, and/or compares the model with the

actual phenomenon. For example, ‘this model could also be used to

explain fog on car windows’

Mechanism or process Preservice teacher mentions change over time, process, mechanism,

causality, and/or variables or influential factors that govern the

phenomenon. For example, ‘the model doesn’t say why evaporation and

condensation happen’

Terminology Preservice teacher cites the use of scientific terms and/or proper use of

terminology. For example, ‘the student uses the term “evaporation” in

his written description’

Other Preservice teacher refers to the salience of model components, the

definition of a scientific model, the purpose of the model, and/or other

metamodeling knowledge. For example, ‘different models convey similar

ideas’

aThese were covered explicitly as model evaluation criteria in the methods course.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

(Figure 1) was focussed on the student’s use of features and aesthetics, specifically

labels:

I think this is a good model because she clearly labels the sections . . . if I were to just look

at this without the labeling I would have no idea what this was but she even labels the

materials like the tops of the stick and the pure water . . . I would say this is a good

model . . . (Arielle, initial interview)

When presented with the second example of a student model of evaporation and

condensation (Figure 2), Arielle’s model evaluation reflected a comparative quality.

That is, student model 2 was juxtaposed with student model 1:

As far as the model itself, I like model 2 better—it’s more detailed and it shows the entire

process . . . But I really do like the key, and I really like how the model 2 student drew out

the steps because it’s important to know that there’s steps behind this . . . and that’s not

mentioned in model 1. (Arielle, initial interview)

Arielle went on to say:

. . . I think if I had gotten them both at once I would have said model 1 isn’t very good just

because this one is so detailed, there’s a key, it’s a cycle . . . I think if I were to say ‘this is a

model’ I would say model 2 . . . I probably wouldn’t have said as many good things about

model 1 if I had seen them at the same time. (Arielle, initial interview)

Here, Arielle explained that her preference for model 2 was based on its level of

detail and the model’s depiction of a process (‘cycle’), something that was not

included pictorially in the first model she evaluated. She also noted that her sense

of what constitutes a ‘good’ model relied heavily on a comparison of the two students’

work.

Mid-semester written model evaluation. In a written evaluation of a student model of

evaporation and condensation (Figure 4), Arielle again noted the importance of the

model’s aesthetics and features in the forms of labels and details:

The student labeled the plastic wrap, cap, water and stick in the model. I liked how this

student also included a written description in addition to the model to help viewers inter-

pret what is going on in the model. (Arielle, written model evaluation)

Final verbal model evaluations. Above, Arielle specifically noted the benefit of text

in helping others make sense of the model (communication). This additional focus on

the role of explanatory text accompanying the model was carried into her final model

evaluations (Figures 1 and 2) at the end of the semester:

. . . But I do think that . . . for any model you would feature a written description . . . for

them to write out a short description of the process helps me understand that they under-

stand what’s going on, rather than just drawing a picture and labeling. (Arielle, final

interview)

This quote suggests that Arielle was concerned with being able to understand what

the model’s creator understood about the phenomenon depicted in the model (sense-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

making). Arielle demonstrated a shift from a surface-level critique to a more in-depth

analysis of student understanding on the basis of what was communicated in the

model. She also had a better sense of what constitutes a scientific model, as the follow-

ing quote from her end-of-semester evaluation of evaporation/condensation model 1

(Figure 1) suggests:

I think that it would be better if the student had drawn it in more than one drawing and

showed in her drawing how it changes over time rather than writing it, but I still under-

stand what’s going on from her written information. (Arielle, final interview)

Here, Arielle approached model evaluation with an idea of what she expected to see

in a student model, something that was not present in her initial model evaluations.

Arielle’s end-of-semester evaluation of a student-generated model of germ trans-

mission (Figure 3) further illustrates this point:

. . . this is not a model, I would say. [MN: Why do you say that?] Because this is not . . . I

would say this is more just a drawing of a man coughing and obviously this is not in any

way scientific . . . (Arielle, final interview)

Ideas about scientific models and modeling. In a more general sense, Arielle also

acknowledged that her ideas about the roles of scientific models and modeling in

instruction had changed:

. . . well I used to think of a scientific model as just the visual of anything in science, it

could be in 3D or drawing, but now I realize . . . that children have to learn from the

process of drawing the model, there’s learning going on through the drawing of the

model . . . So I didn’t think about the process of making the model and the revisions to

the model and adding to the model before, but I think that’s really important. (Arielle,

final interview)

Here, we see that Arielle recognized the learning inherent in scientific modeling.

Self-efficacy for model evaluation. In addition to realizing the pedagogical benefits

of scientific modeling and adopting a more systematic approach to student model

evaluation, Arielle’s self-efficacy for student model evaluation improved, as she

indicated in the post-interview:

I feel more comfortable about it, I think about all the things you can include in a model . . .

before I didn’t really think about [that] . . . now if I were thinking about evaluating a model

I would know how to make a grading rubric and I would say does this include labels, is

this clear, does it show the process accurately, does it include all the factors that we

learned . . . but before I just kind of looked at it and was like ‘yep, this looks good’.

(Arielle, final interview)

Here, Arielle articulated specific features that would allow her to discern levels of

model quality when assessing student work. Arielle also implied that she had a

better sense of the bases for model revision and what the end product of model

revision should entail.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Summary for Arielle. In sum, Arielle’s model evaluation approach transitioned

from an initially comparative one to an approach that favored a standard set of

model evaluation criteria. Arielle focussed consistently on the use of labels and the

inclusion of details in students’ scientific models (model aesthetics and features),

and also became more attentive to whether the model depicted a process over time

and whether it was accompanied by a written explanation or description. She

expressed confidence in her developing ability to evaluate student-generated scientific

models in a more systematic manner.

Kali. Kali was a math major and language arts minor and also did her practicum

work in a local second-grade classroom. Unfortunately, she did not complete the

mid-semester written model evaluation homework assignment, and so those data

are lacking for Kali.

Initial verbal model evaluations. Like Arielle, Kali evaluated the two student models

of evaporation and condensation relative to one another in her initial, beginning-of-

semester interview. About model 1 (Figure 1), Kali said:

I just see that everything is labeled nicely . . . even the process of what’s happening, he has

words to describe the state that the water’s in . . . like he says ‘evaporating water’ . . . (Kali,

initial interview)

In contrast, about model 2 (Figure 2) Kali said:

Well this one’s really detailed . . . this one compared to that one, this one’s in steps so it’s a

little more clear to the viewer . . . this person has a lot more explanation of why the water

drips down the plastic wrap . . . and then he also has a key so he doesn’t have to write in

‘evaporation’ or ‘condensation’, . . . he also has what state the water’s in . . . so I feel like

this one gives you a more substantive process . . . but I don’t necessarily think it’s better

because that one [model 1] includes all the same aspects . . . I feel like your first instinct

would be to look at these and say this one [model 2] is better because it has so much to it,

but I think they in general have the same qualities or same aspects. (Kali, initial interview)

Here, we see that Kali was focussed on model aesthetics and features via the use of

labels and descriptors, as well as the depiction of a process.

Final verbal model evaluations. In the final statement from Kali’s evaluation of

model 2 above, we see a theme that resurfaces in her later model evaluations,

namely, that different models can represent the same information equally well.

Kali’s end-of-semester evaluations of these same two student-generated models

(Figures 1 and 2) reiterated this theme:

I think that both of these students maybe could have added too why is the water evapor-

ating . . . I think that I’d probably grade these both the same because they’re both just

missing a few of like the evidence things that they might have learned . . . but other

than that I think this one [model 2] just has more steps to it. (Kali, final interview)

As in her initial model evaluations, Kali mentioned the importance of a mechanism

or a process being depicted in the models, through her focus on why. In both pre- and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

post-interviews, Kali indicated that she was looking for students’ science understand-

ing (i.e., sense-making) in their models, and recognized that similar conceptual

understandings may be represented in visually different models.

Ideas about scientific models and modeling. Kali perceived that her ideas about the

pedagogical significance of scientific models and modeling also changed during the

semester:

I didn’t ever think about having students draw models, I thought that the teacher just

showed a model, and I just never thought about the whole revision and all that stuff

and making it this process—I think that makes more sense because they learn more

through that . . . (Kali, final interview)

In this comment, Kali suggested that her initial understanding of scientific models

was as static teaching tools; that she had not considered modeling practices, or having

students engage in these as an approach to learning science content.

Self-efficacy for model evaluation. Also changed was Kali’s self-efficacy for evalu-

ation of models of evaporation and condensation, which improved during the

semester.

I felt more confident with these two [evaporation/condensation] models because we had

done that . . . but I feel more confident too just knowing that when we evaluated our

models, just the things we kept in mind and we had . . . different ways we wanted to rep-

resent different things in our models . . . we all had the same evidence . . . [W]ith this one

[germ transmission model] I didn’t feel as confident but I did feel like there needed to be a

little bit more and maybe just in terms of writing . . . showing more detail I guess. But I

definitely feel a little bit more confident than I did before . . . (Kali final interview)

Kali attributed this shift in confidence largely to having experienced the evapor-

ation/condensation modeling unit in the methods course.

Summary for Kali. Overall, we see that Kali’s evaluations of student models of

evaporation and condensation became more thorough during the methods course.

She stressed the importance of having experienced the evaporation/condensation

unit as a factor in her increased confidence in evaluating students’ models. Kali

also maintained a ‘different but equal’ stance in her evaluation of visually very differ-

ent student models. Furthermore, Kali expressed some tentativeness about evaluating

a student model on germ transmission, which suggests that transfer of these model

evaluation skills to other science topics may require additional support.

Lezli. Lezli was a language arts major and social studies minor. Lezli’s teaching prac-

ticum took place in a local fifth grade classroom.

Initial verbal model evaluations. Lezli’s initial model evaluations reflected a focus on

the general concepts of evaporation and condensation over the particular aspects of

what was happening in the solar still example. About model 1 (Figure 1), Lezli said:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

I think that the student understood . . . what was happening in the solar still . . . the thing

that kind of troubles me about it is it says ‘the dirty water’ evaporates, so I’m wondering if

they’re thinking only dirty water can evaporate . . . that it’s more of a purifying process

than it is part of the water cycle . . . (Lezli, initial interview)

Then, when shown model 2 (Figure 2), Lezli said:

. . . she really understands the practical process, like, the water goes up, sticks to the saran

wrap, falls in because of the marble, but I’m not really sure based on this picture if she

understands evaporation and condensation . . . like I think she understands it in the

context of the solar still . . . but would she understand it in a real-world context . . .

(Lezli, initial interview)

Lezli was concerned with whether the student understood the general processes of

evaporation and condensation instantiated in the solar still. She also indicated some

doubt as to the student’s ability to use the model generatively, or explain the phenom-

ena in other contexts.

Mid-semester written model evaluation. In her mid-semester written evaluation of a

student model of evaporation and condensation (Figure 4), Lezli stated:

The student does a good job of showing what happened in the solar still, while the

description is missing some key items . . . the model does a substandard job of communi-

cating. The drawn model and the description correspond beautifully, but the description

is inaccurate, thus communicating incorrect information. (Lezli, written model

evaluation)

Lezli’s evaluation of student work emphasized the communicative power of the

model and its scientific accuracy, two criteria for model evaluation explicitly discussed

in the methods course.

Final verbal model evaluations. In her end-of-semester model evaluations, Lezli

reiterated themes from previous model evaluations and introduced assessment as a

new purpose for scientific modeling. When evaluating model 1 (Figure 1), Lezli said:

. . . it’s their drawing, so it’s their understanding . . . [T]he explanation is really important

because looking at somebody’s drawing we may have no idea what they were talking about

. . . [T]hey’re using the vocabulary that was taught . . . [T]his might be toward the end of

the lesson, or it could be the teacher testing them to see what they do know about it to see

where he/she should go from there . . . (Lezli, final interview)

Then, when evaluating model 2, she noted:

. . . the key shows me that they know what they’re talking about. It is more artistically well-

made than this one [model 1] but I understand them both the same way. And I think both

students understand the concept of evaporation, through the solar still . . . (Lezli, final

interview)

Particularly in her evaluation of model 1, Lezli suggested that evaluation of student

models is useful for teachers in shaping future instruction to be responsive to learners’

understandings. Similarly to Kali, Lezli noted that both students may have


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

understood the concepts of evaporation and condensation but might have chosen to

represent those understandings in different, equally valid ways.

Sense-making, another model evaluation criterion addressed in the methods

course, was highlighted in Lezli’s evaluation of a student’s germ transmission model

(Figure 3):

I’m not really sure if the student knows about germ transmission . . . [T]here’s no mention

of what they know about sickness and how it gets transmitted . . . I wasn’t sure just looking

at this if the student made sense of germ transmission. (Lezli, final interview)

Here, Lezli also suggested that the model should include a mechanistic explanation

which would reveal the student’s understanding of the underlying science content.

Ideas about scientific models and modeling. When prompted to reflect on her under-

standings of models and modeling in the final interview, Lezli said that her conception

of scientific models and modeling and the role they play instructionally changed

during the semester. In the final interview, she stated:

I think that in the beginning . . . I wasn’t thinking of having them draw a picture or to get

their understanding or having them make a diagram or a graph or like those things didn’t

seem like models to me, but now they do . . .. I think I was just thinking of it as a very

broad, end-of-unit assessment thing . . . not something you can use at the beginning . . .

to start to gauge thinking about what kids do know or what they’re confused about . . .

I was just solely thinking of it as an end-of-unit thing, not something you could do

midway through and before and basically all the way through . . . (Lezli, final interview)

Like many other preservice teachers, Lezli expanded her initial ideas about scienti-

fic models as three-dimensional representations to include additional, more abstract

representations such as diagrams and graphs. Similarly, she recognized the purposes

that scientific models and modeling can serve at various points during a science unit,

rather than functioning solely as end-of-unit assessments.

Self-efficacy for model evaluation. Lezli offered the following comment on her own

growth in evaluating student models:

I think that I was looking at them in a broader sense, and I’m not so concerned about little

things, . . . I want to make sure that they get the concept, and if they can show it to me . . .

Not so much ‘it’s not pretty and it’s not this’ it’s the meat of what they need to know is

what I’m looking for. (Lezli, final interview)

In this comment, Lezli’s emphasis on purposeful analysis of student work reveals

her increased confidence in her own model evaluation skills.

Summary for Lezli. Unlike other preservice teachers in this study, Lezli indicated

that her end-of-semester approach to model evaluation was more holistic than it was

initially. In the above excerpts, Lezli cited the importance of student sense-making

underlying their models and the importance of communicating those understandings.

While this is consistent with others’ criterion-based approaches to model evaluation,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Lezli was unique in her explicit statement of preference for a gestalt appraisal of

student work despite her use of multiple, specific model evaluation criteria to deter-

mine students’ understandings of the underlying science concepts.

Madison. Madison was a social studies major and a language arts minor who

admitted in the first interview that ‘science isn’t my major area of interest’.

Madison did her practicum teaching in a local second-grade classroom and said

that she had come to enjoy science a little more after having seen it taught by her coop-

erating teacher.

Initial verbal model evaluations. Madison began her student model evaluations with

the idea that the model should explain the student’s understanding of the ‘why’

behind the phenomenon, in addition to demonstrating proper usage of the science ter-

minology. In response to the first model of evaporation/condensation (Figure 1),

Madison said:

I think the student has a good grasp on what’s happening . . . they use the words evaporate,

condenses . . . from both the words and the drawings I would say that the student under-

stands. I think that it’s a good explanation . . . (Madison, initial interview)

She continued with the following remarks about model 2 (Figure 2):

Wow, this one right away visually I like it . . . I don’t know that it says anything about evap-

oration . . . I guess in the key it says evaporation so they drew little arrows, so that’s kind of

neat that they have the key and everything, but the actual diagram doesn’t say evaporation

. . . but I just thought of something for both of them, I think I would want to know or

would want them to explain why the water is evaporating . . . (Madison, initial interview)

In her evaluation of model 2, Madison initially emphasized its aesthetic qualities. As

she gained more experience, Madison’s model evaluations became more nuanced, as

is seen in her mid-semester and final model evaluations.

Mid-semester written model evaluation. Madison’s written evaluation of a student

model of evaporation and condensation was highly structured and explicitly addressed

the three central criteria emphasized in the course: consistency with evidence/scien-

tific ideas, sense-making, and communication. To this, Madison added:

I am guessing that this model was created as an introduction to the evaporation and con-

densation unit, similar to how we used the solar still as our intro to the unit. My evalu-

ation would probably be slightly different if this model were created later in the unit

(because I feel that it would need more scientific ideas embedded into it). (Madison,

written model evaluation)

Here, Madison stated that in addition to considering the model in light of the three

core evaluation criteria, she would also evaluate the model within its context in the

unit.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Final verbal model evaluations. Madison’s end-of-semester evaluations of student

models echoed her initial emphases on mechanistic, aesthetic, and communicative

aspects of models. About model 1 (Figure 1), she said:

. . . I like that they have the labels . . . it’s a little messy or sloppy though, maybe they could

have a little key . . . the explanation beneath it is good, I like that they put what was hap-

pening into words . . . it uses ‘evaporate’ and ‘condenses’ but it doesn’t really talk about

how it’s evaporating or condensing . . . there’s no mention of what’s making it do that

. . . (Madison, final interview)

About model 2 (Figure 2), Madison said something similar:

So this one has a key, I like that . . . each drawing isn’t as messy or cluttered, I guess—they

don’t have to label every little thing because it’s in the key . . . I like that there’s the multiple

drawings of it . . . and they have a little explanation with each one . . . so it says condensing

but it never says anything . . . oh, I guess evaporation is in the key, but in the little expla-

nations there’s no mention of evaporation . . .. . . I kind of like this one better because it has

the change over time, I think that’s important. (Madison, final interview)

Unlike the other preservice teachers in this study, Madison’s explicitly criterion-

based evaluation of student work was maintained in her evaluation of the student

germ transmission model (Figure 3). She said,

. . . but there’s no explanation of what’s going on and . . . there’s no labels, no key or any-

thing, so it’s kind of hard to make sense of what exactly they are trying to get across . . . and

to know whether they know what they’re talking about or drawing . . . (Madison, final

interview)

Here, we also see Madison’s continued focus on student sense-making of the scien-

tific ideas conveyed in the model.

Ideas about scientific models and modeling. Madison acknowledged that her ideas

about scientific models and modeling had changed:

I guess my idea of a scientific model has expanded now from class . . . drawings, physical

models, charts, graphs, diagrams . . . a scientific model can be a lot of things that express

the idea or are representations of a phenomenon or scientific idea . . . I’ve learned a lot

more about how they can be useful for the students by just their construction, their learn-

ing about the ideas, and I didn’t say this in the beginning because I didn’t realize it but the

revision of it, going back and evaluating them, and re-looking at them and making new

models . . . I think that’s how students learn from it. (Madison, final interview)

Like Arielle, Madison highlighted the student learning that scientific modeling

promotes.

Self-efficacy for model evaluation. In addition to learning more about the pedagogi-

cal advantages of scientific modeling, Madison stated that her evaluation criteria

became more focussed, which contributed to her increased confidence in her model

evaluations.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

I think myevaluations are ok, I think they’re probablybetter thanat the beginning of the seme-

ster . . . I had some things to focus on in terms of evaluating . . . like, whether it makes sense,

and ideas are communicated, the scientific ideas—like I mentioned seeing the actual terms

and stuff like that . . . I think my evaluations are getting better. (Madison, final interview)

Here, Madison identified that having articulated model evaluation criteria contrib-

uted to her improvement in evaluating student models.

Summary for Madison. Unlike the other preservice teachers in this study, Madison

applied these same evaluation criteria to models representing different science topics,

which underscores the importance and relevance of having a set of criteria for her

practice of model evaluation. Specifically, Madison maintained an emphasis on the

importance of mechanism and the proper use of terminology in the student models

throughout the study.

Summary: Preservice teachers’ model evaluations in the interviews

Taken together, the results of focal preservice teachers’ evaluations of student models

indicate that some criteria, such as model aesthetics and features, were prominent

across preservice teachers, while other criteria, such as model generativity, were less

common. More importantly, the ways in which preservice teachers employed criteria

in evaluating student models differed in notable ways between the initial and the final

interviews. Arielle’s initial model evaluations centered on model aesthetics and fea-

tures at a surface level (model as drawing), whereas her final model evaluations

explored the purposes for model aesthetics and features in sense-making and com-

munication capacities (model as conceptual medium). Kali and Lezli underscored

the use of text and terminology as indicators of student understanding in their

initial model evaluations, whereas their final model evaluations emphasized student

sense-making and communication in a more global, less heavily language-dependent

manner. Finally, Madison’s attention to models conveying a mechanism or a process

changed from being an addendum in her initial model evaluations to a central focus

underlying her final model evaluations. In all cases, preservice teachers’ final model

evaluations demonstrated a deeper understanding of modeling-based pedagogy and

the principles underlying criteria-driven student scientific model evaluation.

All preservice teachers’ written model evaluations

To examine which model evaluation criteriawere perhaps most tractable among the larger

set of preservice teachers, we analyzed written evaluations of an evaporation and conden-

sation model for the presence of model evaluation criteria. (The model was shown in

Figure 4 and was part of a homework assignment given in the methods course.) As this

was preservice teachers’ first experience providing written model evaluations, we

focussed mainly on the criteria cited in their responses, rather than the quality of those

responses. Figure 5 shows the aggregate data as percentages of preservice teachers who

used coded, grouped criteria (see Table 2 for coding scheme and example criteria).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Recall that criteria relating to sense-making, communication, and consistency with

scientific ideas and empirical evidence were three model evaluation criteria stressed

instructionally with the preservice teachers. Preservice teachers’ use of these three

model criteria was evident in their written evaluations of a student model (Figure 4),

with sense-making and communication occurring in 86 and 77%, respectively, of the

model evaluations (see Figure 5). Although the third criterion emphasized during

instruction—consistency with scientific ideas and empirical evidence—included state-

ments about the scientific accuracy of the model, it only appeared in roughly half the

model evaluations. Furthermore, as the data show, almost all preservice teachers men-

tioned features and aesthetics in their model evaluations. The preservice teachers noted

that model labels, keys, and neatness, for example, enabled the audience to make sense

of the model and improved the model’s communicative power. Thus, the utility of the

model’s features and aesthetics was to promote communication and sense-making.

Also noteworthy was the frequency of critiques of the ‘hows and whys’ behind the

student’s model of evaporation, captured in the ‘mechanism/process’ code. Many

preservice teachers (69%) took up the notion that scientific models should explain

the underlying processes associated with the phenomena (purely descriptive) and/or the mechanistic reasoning behind those processes (causal). The idea that a

model should convey procedural and/or mechanistic information was discussed on

several occasions during the methods course, although it was not explicitly and con-

sistently referenced as a major model evaluation criterion.

These teachers did not, however, tend to emphasize the issue of generativity—that

models should be able to be used to make explanations or predictions for other contexts.

Only 23% of the model evaluations incorporated evaluation along this criterion. During

the methods course, this criterion was discussed only briefly and was rarely invoked as a

model criterion. As this finding suggests, exploring preservice teachers’ perceptions of

model generativity would provide an interesting topic for further study.

How do the focal preservice teachers compare with the entire cohort in their written

model evaluations? Focal preservice teachers tended to highlight the same model

Figure 5. Preservice teachers’ use of criteria when evaluating a student-generated model of

evaporation and condensation (n ¼ 35)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

evaluation criteria as their peers in their written model evaluations. For example, Lezli and

Madison invoked the evaluation criteria repeatedly emphasized in the methods course.

This likely influence of instruction upon preservice teachers’ student model evaluations,

along with other notable themes observed in the data, is elaborated upon next.

Discussion

When examining the data across individuals in this study, we identified several themes

relating to the two research questions framing this study: how do preservice elementary

teachers evaluate elementary students’ scientific models? and how do preservice elemen-

tary teachers’ knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy for model evaluation change during the

elementary science teaching methods semester? Of course, no study is without limit-

ations, and our relatively small sample size and case study approach precludes general-

izations about preservice elementary teachers’ scientific model evaluations. The study

does, however, provide insight into a novel area of research: the development of PCK

for scientific model evaluation. We briefly discuss three overarching and inter-related

themes and their implications for preservice elementary science teacher education

with regard to the elements of PCK-SM identified in bold in Table 1.

Theme 1: Changes in knowledge

In this study, preservice teachers acknowledged their own gains in knowledge, particu-

larly having to do with scientific models, modeling practice, and modeling-based peda-

gogy. Specifically, Kali and Lezli spoke of how their ideas of what constituted a scientific

model had expanded to include two-dimensional representations such as diagrams and

graphs, echoing results from similar studies (Crawford & Cullin, 2004; Justi & van

Driel, 2005; Schwarz, 2009; Windschitl & Thompson, 2006). Arielle, Kali, and

Madison explicitly mentioned that models of the solar still should include processes

or mechanisms of evaporation and condensation. And in the final interviews, all four

preservice teachers noted that they now viewed engaging in modeling practice as a

means by which students could learn science. Model evaluation and revision were high-

lighted by Madison, who felt that these practices were particularly important to student

learning. Madison also identified another aspect of her learning that was consistent with

other preservice teachers’ statements: gaining a set of articulated criteria for scientific

model evaluation. Thus, these teachers developed more sophisticated modeling and

metamodeling knowledge during the course of the semester.

In addition to gaining knowledge about scientific models, modeling practice, and

modeling-based pedagogy, preservice teachers in this study gained subject matter

knowledge about evaporation and condensation. Kali alluded to this point in her

statements about having experienced the evaporation and condensation unit from

the student’s point of view and having more confidence in the student solar still

model evaluations than in the evaluation of a student model of germ transmission

(a topic that was not covered in the methods course). Except Madison, the inter-

viewed preservice teachers gave much more detailed evaluations of the student


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

solar still models than they did of the student germ transmission model in final inter-

view, which suggests that they had a better idea of what they were hoping to see in

terms of science content in the solar still models. This was not surprising, as we did

not expect that preservice teachers would have extensive knowledge of germ trans-

mission mechanisms; however, we were interested in seeing whether preservice tea-

chers would apply the same set of model evaluation criteria to a novel student

model. Whereas the other preservice teachers evaluated the germ transmission

model roughly in terms of criteria discussed in the methods course, Madison was

the only participant who explicitly applied the same set of model evaluation criteria

to the germ transmission model evaluation as she did to the solar still models.

Knowledge relevant to both scientific model evaluation and science content is

evident in preservice teachers’ written evaluations of the student model of evaporation

and condensation. The majority of preservice teachers in this study applied model

evaluation criteria that were explicitly addressed in the methods course in their evalu-

ations of the student’s solar still model. In doing so, they simultaneously addressed the

scientific accuracy of student’s representation of evaporation and condensation embo-

died in the model.

What does this mean for preservice teachers’development of PCK for scientific model

evaluation? To effectively engage in evaluation of students’ scientific models, preservice

elementary teachers must develop content knowledge about the science represented in

the model, as well as knowledge of scientific models and modeling practices, including

knowledge of relevant model evaluation criteria. With appropriate supports in place,

development in these forms of modeling-related knowledge is possible (Crawford &

Cullin, 2004; Davis, Nelson, & Beyer, 2008; De Jong et al., 2005; Schwarz, 2009;

Windschitl et al., 2008b). While preservice teachers had an idea of the criteria with

which to evaluate a student-generated scientific model in a science topic not explored

in the methods course, their evaluations of this student work lacked the depth and rich-

ness of their evaluations of student models of evaporation and condensation, a very fam-

iliar topic for them. Additionally, developing preservice teachers’ understanding of the

science concepts supported systematic, criterion-based evaluation of students’ models,

as the changes after the initial interview data suggest. Supporting preservice teachers’

developing modeling practice in a variety of science content areas is warranted and

likely to benefit their modeling-based instructional practice (Justi & van Driel, 2005;

Kenyon et al., 2011; Schwarz, 2009). By helping preservice teachers recognize opportu-

nities for and advantages of modeling-based pedagogies in ways that are connected to

understandings of modeling and scientific content, teacher educators help establish

the foundation for developing PCK for scientific model evaluation.

Theme 2: Changes in model evaluation skills

As the semester unfolded, preservice teachers’ evaluations of students’ scientific

models became more standardized and skillful. As many of the focal preservice tea-

chers noted, they gained a set of articulated model evaluation criteria as part of

their knowledge relating to models and modeling. This was evident in many of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

written model evaluations, which were structured to reflect the criteria emphasized in

the course. Our findings suggest that preservice teachers applied specific model evalu-

ation criteria in their mid-semester and end-of-semester model evaluations to a much

higher degree than they did in their initial, beginning-of-semester model evaluations.

These findings extend the body of work studying preservice teachers’ scientific mod-

eling knowledge- and skill-development by focussing on their knowledge, skills, and

self-efficacy around a very specific practice: evaluating elementary students’ scientific

models (Crawford & Cullin, 2004; Justi & van Driel, 2005; Schwarz, 2009; Schwarz

et al., 2009; Windschitl et al., 2008b). Arielle and Kali, in particular, shifted from

evaluating student models comparatively to evaluating student models individually,

applying a set of pre-determined evaluation criteria.

Changes in model evaluation skills relate closely to changes in knowledge and self-

efficacy. Increased knowledge of model evaluation criteria was evident in preservice tea-

chers’ mention of these criteria in their later, more highly skilled model evaluations.

Madison, in particular, explicitly noted the criteria she was applying in her end-of-

semester interview model evaluations and reflected upon her own improvement in

model evaluation attributable to knowing a set of articulated model evaluation criteria.

Kali noted that her confidence in her model evaluations increased, in part, due to

having experienced the evaporation and condensation unit, a sentiment that was

echoed by other preservice teachers in this study. As preservice teachers gained more

experience with evaporation/condensation model evaluation, their evaluations became

more focussed on what the model creator (the student) understood about evaporation

and condensation, and less self-conscious about their own critiques of the model.

Overall, our findings with respect to preservice teachers’ increased self-efficacies for

content knowledge-based scientific model evaluation relate favorably with, and extend

upon, other empirical findings of methods, course experience-mediated increases in pre-

service teacher knowledge and confidence (Palmer, 2006; Sherman & MacDonald,

2007; Windschitl & Thompson, 2006).

What does this mean for preservice teachers’development of PCK for scientific model

evaluation? In the development of skills related to PCK for scientific model evaluation,

experience, practice, and self-efficacy play instrumental roles. Having multiple oppor-

tunities to engage in the work of scientific modeling—particularly evaluating and revis-

ing models of evaporation and condensation—reinforced for preservice teachers the

subject matter knowledge captured in the models and introduced them to novel model-

ing-based pedagogies (Kenyon et al., 2011). Furthermore, these multiple, scaffolded

exposures to modeling facilitated preservice teachers’ mindful, focussed, and repeated

work developing their own modeling skills, science subject matter knowledge, and con-

fidence in their abilities to effectively analyze student models. Such experiences position

preservice teachers to develop the beginnings of PCK, termed ‘PCK-readiness’

(Smithey, 2007), by helping them identify, articulate, and carry out modeling practices

and pedagogies. In addition, these experiences with scientific modeling promote con-

sideration of modeling as viable instructional methodology. As Kali noted, engaging

in an elementary science unit involving model evaluation was essential to developing

both skills and confidence in evaluating scientific models, the subject of theme 3.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Theme 3: Changes in self-efficacy for model evaluation

Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for evaluating student-generated scientific models also

increased as preservice teachers gained knowledge and experience with scientific model

evaluation. All four preservice teachers in this study felt that their model evaluations had

improved over the course of the semester, for a variety of reasons including increased

experience with model evaluation and additional knowledge of model evaluation criteria.

Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for model evaluation appeared to be topic-specific and

related to the preservice teacher’s subject matter knowledge in the model topic (Palmer,

2006; Schoon & Boone, 1998). Kali alluded to this point in her statement about the role

of experiencing the evaporation and condensation unit in the methods course. Mean-

while, Arielle stated that the student’s germ transmission model was ‘not a model’,

but she did not elaborate on how this model was ‘not scientific’ in the same ways in

which she evaluated the scientific accuracy of a student’s solar still model. Madison pro-

vides an interesting counterexample as she was the only preservice teacher to evaluate

the germ transmission and evaporation/condensation models systematically, applying

the same criteria in each model evaluation. Overall, though, all four preservice teachers

demonstrated increased confidence in their model evaluations over the course of the

semester, which was reflected in their self-reports.

What does this mean for preservice teachers’ development of PCK for scientific

model evaluation? Part of developing PCK for scientific model evaluation lies in

developing confidence in one’s own knowledge and skills in model evaluation. To

what degree experience and knowledge each figure into self-efficacy for model evalu-

ation was not explored in this study and is likely to vary on an individual basis (Blei-

cher, 2009; Howitt, 2007; Palmer, 2006). However, supporting preservice elementary

teachers’ development of requisite knowledge to effectively evaluate scientific models

and providing multiple opportunities to engage in the work of model evaluation is

likely essential to bolstering confidence in their own model evaluation, and thus fos-

tering their development of PCK for scientific model evaluation.

Implications

Scientific modeling pedagogies provide rich opportunities for learners and teachers to

engage in multiple authentic scientific practices. For example, evaluating scientific

models entails critical examination of how well models represent data-derived under-

standings of scientific phenomena and consideration of the ways in which these under-

standings are made accessible to model audiences. In light of our findings about

preservice teachers’ evaluations of student-generated scientific models, we offer two

recommendations concerning preservice elementary teacher education in scientific

modeling.

First, teacher educators should incorporate multiple supports for developing preservice tea-

chers’ knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy in evaluation of student-generated scientific models.

As our data and others’ data suggest, preservice teachers’ modeling practice benefits

from instructional time dedicated to scientific modeling in a teaching methods course


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

(Crawford & Cullin, 2004; Kenyon et al., 2011; Windschitl & Thompson, 2006).

Preservice teachers’ model evaluations became more knowledge-based, skilled,

and confident over the methods course semester, and preservice teachers themselves

were aware of these changes and accordingly demonstrated higher levels of self-

efficacy for student model evaluation. As part of this instructional time spent on

scientific modeling, we recommend providing preservice teachers with opportunities

not only to learn about scientific modeling, but to also engage in scientific modeling in

ways that are grounded in specific science content. Part of these instructional experi-

ences with scientific model evaluation should entail the use of well-articulated,

specific criteria and support preservice teachers in applying those judiciously selected

criteria to the evaluation of scientific models in a range of content areas, with

emphases on how those model evaluation criteria relate to the science subject

matter in question (Kenyon et al., 2011). As our data show, those model evaluation

criteria that were repeatedly emphasized (such as sense-making) were present more

consistently in preservice teachers’ model evaluations than criteria that featured

into the course less prominently (such as generativity). This has implications for

teacher educators’ choices of which model evaluation criteria to stress. Preservice

teachers benefit from (a) carefully scaffolded use of criteria in evaluating lesson

plans (Beyer, 2009; Davis, 2006; Schwarz et al., 2008) and (b) explicitly guided

work with scientific modeling (Kenyon et al., 2011; Nelson & Davis, 2009;

Schwarz, 2009; Sherman & MacDonald, 2007; Windschitl et al., 2008b). Similar

supportive measures regarding scientific model evaluation should help preservice

teachers develop this element of modeling-based pedagogy.

Second, teacher educators should familiarize themselves with modeling-based pedagogies and

develop their own skills and PCK for teaching preservice teachers how to incorporate modeling-

based pedagogies in elementary science instruction. For many teacher educators, this may

necessitate learning new approaches to the teaching of science (Windschitl et al.,

2008a). Often, it will require teacher educators to support preservice teachers in analyz-

ing and modifying existing curriculum materials to infuse a modeling focus. Here, we

describe one aspect of our initial attempts to support preservice elementary teachers

in acquiring the knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy necessary to effectively incorporate

modeling-based instructional approaches in the elementary science classroom. In

doing this work, we have gained an awareness of our own limitations regarding model-

ing-based pedagogies. Therefore, we recommend that time and effort in elementary

teacher education be devoted to scientific modeling—for preservice teachers as well as

their instructors, which means that teacher educators need to have sound understand-

ings of and experience with modeling-based pedagogies in science and how to teach

others to do this work. Thus, science teacher educators too must develop PCK for teach-

ing preservice science teachers (Abell, Rogers, Hanuscin, Lee, & Gagnon, 2009; Smith,

2000), and we propose that PCK for modeling-based pedagogies be an important part of

this PCK for teaching preservice science teachers (Kenyon et al., 2011).

In closing, we hope that this work will inform future studies of preservice elemen-

tary teachers’ developing of PCK with respect to scientific modeling. As our findings

suggest, it is an area ripe for further study.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation under grant ESI-

0628199 to Northwestern University for the MoDeLS project. The opinions

expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NSF. We

thank the entire MoDeLS research group, at eight institutions, for their help in think-

ing about these ideas. We also thank the preservice teachers with whom we work,

especially those who agreed to participate in this study.

References

Abell, S.K., Rogers, M.A.P., Hanuscin, D.L., Lee, M.H., & Gagnon, M.J. (2009). Preparing the

next generation of science teacher educators: A model for developing PCK for teaching

science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–93.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993, 2009). Benchmarks for science literacy,

(Publication). Retrieved February 26, 2009, from AAAS: http://www.project2061.org/

publications/bsl/online/ch11/c-als11b.htm

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Beyer, C. (2009). Using reform-based criteria to support the development of preservice elementary teachers’

pedagogical design capacity for analyzing science curriculum materials, Dissertation, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Bleicher, R.E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice elementary

teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104(8), 383–391.

Bleicher, R.E. (2006). Nurturing confidence in preservice elementary science teachers. Journal of

Science Teacher Education, 17(2), 165–187.

Bleicher, R.E. (2009). Variable relationships among different science learners in elementary science-

methods courses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 293–313.

Borman, K.M., Clarke, C., Cotner, B., & Lee, R. (2006). Cross-case analysis. In J.L. Green, G.

Camilli, & P.B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research

(pp. 123–139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Crawford, B., & Cullin, M. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modeling in

science. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1379–1401.

Davis, E.A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science.

Science Education, 90(2), 348–375.

Davis, E.A., Nelson, M.M., & Beyer, C.J. (2008). Using educative curriculum materials to support teachers

in developing pedagogical content knowledge for scientific modeling. Paper presented at the Annual

Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.

De Jong, O., van Driel, J.H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of

using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 947–964.

Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251.

Ford, M.J., & Wargo, B.M. (2007). Routines, roles, and responsibilities for aligning scientific and

classroom practices. Science Education, 91(1), 133–157.

Gilbert, J., & Boulter, C. (Eds.). (2001). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of


Howitt, C. (2007). Pre-service elementary teachers’ perceptions of factors in an holistic methods course

influencing their confidence in teaching science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 41–58.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/news_and_press_releases/latest_news/hans_sloanes_atlantic_world.aspx


Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use ofmodels

and modeling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273–1292.

Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2005). The development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and

modelling: Promoting, characterizing, and understanding the process. International Journal of


Kenyon, L., Davis, E.A., & Hug, B. (2011). Design approaches to support teachers in modeling

practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(1), 1–21.

Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., & Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling: Constructing, using,

evaluating, and revising scientific models helps students advance their scientific ideas, learn to

think critically, and understand the nature of science. Science and Children, 46(2), 40–44.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical

content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examin-

ing pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education

(pp. 95–132). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2010). A framework for science education. Preliminary public draft.

National Research Council of the National Academies. Retrieved from http://www.aapt.org/

Resources/upload/Draft-Framework-Science-Education.pdf

Nelson, M.M., & Davis, E.A. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers’ science lesson plan analyses and

modifications concerning scientific modeling: Insights into teacher knowledge application. Paper pre-

sented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,

Garden Grove, CA.

Palmer, D.H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher edu-

cation students. Research in Science Education, 36(4), 337–353.

Piko, B.F., & Bak, J. (2006). Children’s perceptions of health and illness: Images and lay concepts in

preadolescence. Health Education Research, 21(5), 643–653.

Porter, A.C. (2006). Curriculum assessment. In J.L. Green, G. Camilli, & P.B. Elmore (Eds.),

Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 141–159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Schoon, K.J., & Boone, W.J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preser-

vice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553–568.

Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through

modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720–744.

Schwarz, C., Meyer, J., & Sharma, A. (2007). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportu-

nities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science

methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 243–269.

Schwarz, C.V., Gunckel, K.L., Smith, E.L., Covitt, B.A., Bae, M., Enfield, M., & Tsurusaki, B.

(2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective

science teaching. Science Education, 92(2), 345–377.

Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., . . . Krajcik, J. (2009).

Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessi-

ble and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.

Schwarz, C.V., & White, B.Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understand-

ing of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

Sherman, A., & MacDonald, L. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ experiences with a science education

module. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 525–541.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Smith, D.C. (2000). Content and pedagogical content knowledge for elementary science teacher

educators: Knowing our students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(1), 27–46.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4



Smithey, J. (2007). Preservice elementary teachers’ development of PCK-readiness about learners’ science

ideas, Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

van Driel, J.H., & De Jong, O. (2001). Investigating the development of preservice teachers’ pedagogical

content knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for

Research and Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

van Driel, J.H., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry tea-

chers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572–590.

Watters, J.J., & Diezmann, C.M. (2007). Multimedia resources to bridge the praxis gap: Modeling

practice in elementary science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(3), 349–375.

Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experi-

ences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1),

112–143.

Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation:

The impact of preservice instruction on teachers’ understandings of model-based inquiry.

American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783–835.

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008a). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based

inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education,

92(5), 941–967.

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008b). How novice science teachers appropriate

epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms. Cognition and Instruc-

tion, 26(3), 310–378.

Yin, R.K. (2006). Case study methods. In J.L. Green, G. Camilli, & P.B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook

of complementary methods in education research (pp. 111–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Appendix. Interview protocols

To give me a better sense of your background, can you first tell me a little bit about

your experiences as a science learner? Do you (or did you) enjoy learning science?

(initial interview only)

How do you feel about teaching science at the elementary level? What are the most

important aspects of teaching science for you, as a teacher? What are you hoping that

your future students will get out of learning science in your classroom? Why are these

aspects important to you? (initial interview only)

Table A1. Interview questions and probes

Initial interview Final interview

When I say ‘scientific model’ what do you think

of? Can you give me some examples of scientific

models? Why would you consider these

scientific models? (contrast with something that

is not a scientific model?)

When I say ‘scientific model’ what do you think

of? Can you give me some examples of scientific

models? Why would you consider these

scientific models? Do you think your ideas about

scientific models have changed over the course

of the semester?

How do you think scientific models can be

useful for teachers? for learners? (refer to answer

from pretest) Can you say more about the

answers you gave in the journal exercise?

How do you think scientific models can be

useful for teachers? for learners? Do you think

your ideas about this have changed over the

course of the semester?

(Continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Table A1. (Continued)

Initial interview Final interview

Let us take a look at your answers to the pretest

question about firefly luminescence . . .

(not asked in final interview)

Can you tell me about your thought process

when you were answering this question?

Think aloud #1: Think aloud #1:

For the next part of the interview, I am also

going to ask you to think out loud as you answer

the next few questions. OK—here is the

scenario: you are an elementary teacher who is

taking a look at some student work. The

students have been asked to draw a picture

model of evaporation/condensation in science.

Here is one student’s model of evaporation/condensation:

For the next part of the interview, I am also

going to ask you to think out loud as you answer

the next few questions. OK—here is the

scenario: you are a fourth-grade teacher who is

taking a look at some student work. The

students have been asked to draw a picture

model of evaporation/condensation in science.

Here is one student’s model of evaporation/condensation:

Now imagine that you are evaluating this

student’s model. Please ‘think aloud’ and tell me

how you would analyze and evaluate this

student’s model of evaporation/condensation



how you would analyze and evaluate this

student’s model of evaporation/condensation

What types of considerations did you take into

account when judging the quality of this model?



(What criteria did you use when judging the

quality of this model?)

(What criteria did you use when judging the

quality of this model?)

After: How do you feel about your analysis of

this student’s model?

Think aloud #2: same idea, different student’s

model of evaporation/condensation

Think aloud #2: same idea, different student’s

model of evaporation/condensation



how you would evaluate this student’s model of

evaporation/condensation



how you would evaluate this student’s model of

evaporation/condensation





After: How do you feel about your analysis of

this student’s model? In hindsight, is there

anything you would change about what you said

about either the first or the second student’s

models?

If I asked you to compare the two models, what

would you say?

If I asked you to compare the two models, what

would you say?

(none) Germ Transmission Model: now, imagine you

are evaluating a fourth grader’s model of germ

transmission. Again, please ‘think aloud’ and tell

me how you would evaluate this student’s work

(none) How do you feel about your evaluations of these

student models? Is this different from the first

interview when I asked you to evaluate student

models? If so, how?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

6:59

05

Oct

ober

201

4

preservice elementary teachers' evaluations of elementary students' scientific models: an...

Documents