{"title":"IPM 循环:促进学生参与建模实践和构建模型的教学工具","authors":"Anna Garrido, Digna Couso","doi":"10.1002/tea.21979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The importance of models and modeling in science education is well‐recognized, yet there exists significant polysemy among these terms within the literature. This ambiguity often leads to confusion, particularly regarding whether modeling represents an expected student performance, an instructional strategy to promote such performance, or both. Moreover, the construction of models has been depicted as both the objective of modeling and a distinct phase within modeling‐based instruction. Additionally, the expression of models has often been overlooked despite its significance as a crucial modeling practice. In an endeavor to shed light into these complexities associated with modeling in science education, this paper pursues a twofold aim. First, it theoretically presents and justifies the Instruction Performance Modeling (IPM) cycle, drawing on numerous previous contributions to the field, as a practical and specific instructional tool designed to clarify some problematic concepts both regarding modeling instruction and modeling practice. Second, it provides empirical evidence regarding the type of modeling performance exhibited by students involved in instruction guided by the IPM. This study applies discourse analysis to the multimodal productions of preservice teachers attending a lab‐based workshop on the topic of flotation. The main findings reveal that students' modeling performance, while exhibiting certain patterns such as the Introductory pattern or the Evaluation‐Revision one, predominantly manifests as a disorganized sequence of modeling practices. This result is consistent with certain precedents in the modeling literature but contrasts with the expected outcomes of well‐established approaches like Generation‐Evaluation‐Modification. Furthermore, the study aims to highlight the rich, meaningful, and productive modeling practices occurring in instructional scenarios guided by the IPM cycle.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The IPM cycle: An instructional tool for promoting students' engagement in modeling practices and construction of models\",\"authors\":\"Anna Garrido, Digna Couso\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/tea.21979\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The importance of models and modeling in science education is well‐recognized, yet there exists significant polysemy among these terms within the literature. This ambiguity often leads to confusion, particularly regarding whether modeling represents an expected student performance, an instructional strategy to promote such performance, or both. Moreover, the construction of models has been depicted as both the objective of modeling and a distinct phase within modeling‐based instruction. Additionally, the expression of models has often been overlooked despite its significance as a crucial modeling practice. In an endeavor to shed light into these complexities associated with modeling in science education, this paper pursues a twofold aim. First, it theoretically presents and justifies the Instruction Performance Modeling (IPM) cycle, drawing on numerous previous contributions to the field, as a practical and specific instructional tool designed to clarify some problematic concepts both regarding modeling instruction and modeling practice. Second, it provides empirical evidence regarding the type of modeling performance exhibited by students involved in instruction guided by the IPM. This study applies discourse analysis to the multimodal productions of preservice teachers attending a lab‐based workshop on the topic of flotation. The main findings reveal that students' modeling performance, while exhibiting certain patterns such as the Introductory pattern or the Evaluation‐Revision one, predominantly manifests as a disorganized sequence of modeling practices. This result is consistent with certain precedents in the modeling literature but contrasts with the expected outcomes of well‐established approaches like Generation‐Evaluation‐Modification. Furthermore, the study aims to highlight the rich, meaningful, and productive modeling practices occurring in instructional scenarios guided by the IPM cycle.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48369,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research in Science Teaching\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research in Science Teaching\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21979\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21979","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
The IPM cycle: An instructional tool for promoting students' engagement in modeling practices and construction of models
The importance of models and modeling in science education is well‐recognized, yet there exists significant polysemy among these terms within the literature. This ambiguity often leads to confusion, particularly regarding whether modeling represents an expected student performance, an instructional strategy to promote such performance, or both. Moreover, the construction of models has been depicted as both the objective of modeling and a distinct phase within modeling‐based instruction. Additionally, the expression of models has often been overlooked despite its significance as a crucial modeling practice. In an endeavor to shed light into these complexities associated with modeling in science education, this paper pursues a twofold aim. First, it theoretically presents and justifies the Instruction Performance Modeling (IPM) cycle, drawing on numerous previous contributions to the field, as a practical and specific instructional tool designed to clarify some problematic concepts both regarding modeling instruction and modeling practice. Second, it provides empirical evidence regarding the type of modeling performance exhibited by students involved in instruction guided by the IPM. This study applies discourse analysis to the multimodal productions of preservice teachers attending a lab‐based workshop on the topic of flotation. The main findings reveal that students' modeling performance, while exhibiting certain patterns such as the Introductory pattern or the Evaluation‐Revision one, predominantly manifests as a disorganized sequence of modeling practices. This result is consistent with certain precedents in the modeling literature but contrasts with the expected outcomes of well‐established approaches like Generation‐Evaluation‐Modification. Furthermore, the study aims to highlight the rich, meaningful, and productive modeling practices occurring in instructional scenarios guided by the IPM cycle.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. Scholarly manuscripts within the domain of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching include, but are not limited to, investigations employing qualitative, ethnographic, historical, survey, philosophical, case study research, quantitative, experimental, quasi-experimental, data mining, and data analytics approaches; position papers; policy perspectives; critical reviews of the literature; and comments and criticism.