Fraser B.J., K.G. Tobin (eds.), International Handbook of Science Education, 53-66, 1998 Kluwer.
The main aim of the article is to discuss the word `model' when used in science education and to show how models can and do contribute to learning in classrooms. First the relationships between model, theory and concept are examined. The second section describes the nature of learning in `situations', `narratives' and `models'. Difference is made between target systems (common experience, are to be represented), mental models (personel), expressed models, consensus models (expressed models which have been subjected to testing by a group and have been agreed), and teaching models (specially-costructed models used to aid the understanding of a consensus model). Suggested is that the capacity of students to form and express models should be enhanced. An example of how this can be done is with `practical' or `open' work.
Computers can be used in exploratory and expressive modes (zie See Doerr, Helen M. ). The exploratory mode is at the end of the activity types involving modeling in science education. The purpose is limited to showing how a consensus model behaves. Students usually do not know what the program does with the input figures, and often they do not know what the model actually is. In these circumstances students can not appreciate the scope and the limitations of the model and are not led to the appreciation that any model is an idealised representation, and confuse the model with reality. In the expressive mode the students are able to specify what the variables are, and, within the constraints of the software, to investigate how these variables can be related. This use of the computer places much more emphasis on the production of mental models by the students, on their articulation and use to make predictions, and on how their models evolve towards consensus models.
Producing narratives in science education (where models are constructed and tested) involves the use of argument (intra- and inter-personelly). Three forms of argumentation are identified: `didactic' (with emphasis on teaching consensus models, students are passive receptors), `Socratic' (basis of discovery-methods, students are guided, often at high speed, towards consensus models) and `dialogue' argument (committed to a constructivist view, more likely that students will express models). The balance of these three forms governs the roles played by mental, expressed, consensus and teaching models.
The article finishes with a short discussion and suggestions for research and practice. Among them: How are expressed models developed and used in `open work'?