Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using Computer Simulations for Promoting Model-based Reasoning

Epistemological and Educational Dimensions

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scientific reasoning is particularly pertinent to science education since it is closely related to the content and methodologies of science and contributes to scientific literacy. Much of the research in science education investigates the appropriate framework and teaching methods and tools needed to promote students’ ability to reason and evaluate in a scientific way. This paper aims (a) to contribute to an extended understanding of the nature and pedagogical importance of model-based reasoning and (b) to exemplify how using computer simulations can support students’ model-based reasoning. We provide first a background for both scientific reasoning and computer simulations, based on the relevant philosophical views and the related educational discussion. This background suggests that the model-based framework provides an epistemologically valid and pedagogically appropriate basis for teaching scientific reasoning and for helping students develop sounder reasoning and decision-taking abilities and explains how using computer simulations can foster these abilities. We then provide some examples illustrating the use of computer simulations to support model-based reasoning and evaluation activities in the classroom. The examples reflect the procedure and criteria for evaluating models in science and demonstrate the educational advantages of their application in classroom reasoning activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Causal-mechanistic reasoning explains phenomena on the basis of causal relations between their key entities and characteristics, i.e., on the basis of possible mechanisms underlying the phenomena (see, e.g., White 1993; Besson 2010; Zangori et al. 2015). Theoretical-mathematical reasoning means explaining phenomena based on the principles and basic equations of the relevant theories about them (see, e.g., Giere 1999b, 2010; Boon 2011). (Causal-mechanistic reasoning and theoretical-mathematical reasoning appear to be the two basic types of scientific reasoning (Boon 2011)) Analogical reasoning is based on the use of analogies (see, e.g., Gilbert & Justi 2016), and systems thinking is based on considering the systemic character and interaction of particular (complex) systems (see, e.g., Joyner et al. 2013).

  2. Induction in empirical sciences is the inference of general conclusions about a phenomenon from observations and experiments with a limited number of systems (e.g., inferring the “laws” of gases from relevant observations/experiments with some gases). Deduction means deriving specific proposals or predictions about a phenomenon from a general principle/hypothesis/model, which are then compared to empirical data to check the validity of the initial principle/hypothesis/model (e.g., the value of the lunar period, which is calculated (deduced) from the law of universal gravitation, is compared to the value given by observations with a telescope) (see, e.g., Popper 1959). Abduction is the process of generating hypotheses in which a known successful explanation for one situation is transferred and applied to a new situation as a tentative explanation of it (see, e.g., Lawson 2003, 2009; Kwon et al. 2006).

  3. Τhe semantic view (or non-statement or predicate or model-theoretic view (see Suppe 1977; Ariza et al. 2016), understands theories not as sets of (linguistic) statements that directly describe the real world, as in the statement view, but as sets of models, non-linguistic entities that mediate the application of theories to the real complex systems. In the semantic view, however, so named in contrast to the linguistic-syntactic approach to theories, the initial conceptions of models and their relation to theory were also expressed in the formal logic language of the statement view. These conceptions then became progressively more concrete by interpretations of models and modeling from a perspective closer to scientific practice developed in the philosophy of science (mainly by Giere, e.g., Giere 1988, 1999a, 2010), the sociology of science, and the cognitive sciences. The term “model-based view” is now used more broadly for this version of the original semantic view.

  4. A considerable body of science education literature has been published, arguing the potential of a science education resting on a model-based foundation for the achievement of contemporary educational aims and noting the conditions for the success of model-based teaching, such as the correct conceptualization of the models and modeling and the necessary revisions to the curricula, teachers’ education and textbooks (e.g., Ogborn 1994; Adúriz-Bravo & Izquierdo-Aymerich 2005; Matthews 2007; Develaki 2007; Adúriz-Bravo 2013; Ariza et al. 2016).

  5. Giere et al. (2006) cite the case of the model for the structure of DNA to exemplify the cases of positive and negative evidence and their role in the assessment of a model’s suitability. Specifically, the initial triple helix model was rejected because it did not correctly predict the amount of water that the DNA molecules were observed to retain in Franklin’s experiments with DNA samples (negative evidence). The double helix model that was proposed in its stead was selected not only because it gave a correct prediction for the quantity of water but chiefly because it correctly predicted the x-ray image of DNA (positive evidence), which could not be predicted with any other possible alternative model, while the prediction for the correct quantity of water could have been extracted from alternative models (e.g., from appropriately adjusted triple helix models).

  6. For moderate velocities, the frictional resistance of the air is F fr = 1/2ρcAv 2, where ρ is the density of the air (1.29 kg/m3), A is the maximum cross-section of the falling body perpendicular to the air flow, and c is the coefficient of friction of the air, which depends on the shape of the body.

  7. The Framework for K-12 Science Education and the NGSS articulate science education in three dimensions which should be integrated into students’ learning experiences and provide the basis for student assessment, expressed as ‘Performance Expectations’ (PES) in the NGSS. These dimensions are: some core ideas (as regards content knowledge), crosscutting concepts (for the linking of knowledge), and basic science and engineering practices. The transformation and implementation of the (PES) at classroom level requires additional guidance for teachers and the provision of concrete examples, strategies and instructional curricular materials (see Krajcik et al. 2014).

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2007). Atlas of science literacy, volumes 1 and 2. Washington, DC: Project 2061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The nature of science and instructional praxis: making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2013). A ‘semantic’ view of scientific models for science education. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 147–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2011). Fostering model-based school scientific argumentation among prospective science teachers. US-China Education Review, 8(5), 718–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, Α., & Izquierdo-Aymerich, Μ. (2009). A research-informed instructional unit to teach the nature of science to pre-service science teachers. Science & Education, 18, 1177–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. (2005). Utilizing the ‘3P-model’ to characterize the discipline of didactics of science. Science & Education, 14, 29–41.

  • Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socio-scientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8–9), 805–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andaloro, G. V., Donzelli, V., & Sperandeo-Mineo, R. M. (1991). Modelling in physics teaching: the role of computer simulation. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariza, Y., Lorenzano, P., & Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2016). Meta-theoretical contributions to the constitution of a model-based didactics of science. Science & Education, 25, 747–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besson, U. (2010). Calculating and understanding: formal models and causal explanations in science, common reasoning and physics teaching. Science & Education, 19(3), 225–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bethge, T., & Schecker, H. (1992). Materialien zur Modellbildung und Simulation im Physikunterricht. Bremen: Institut für Didaktik der Physik.

  • Bliss, J. (1994). From mental models to modelling. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn, & C. Tompsett (Eds.), Learning with artificial worlds: computer-based modelling in the curriculum (pp. 27–32). London: the Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boon, M. (2011). Two Styles of reasoning in scientific practices: experimental and mathematical traditions. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(3), 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: a model-based framework. Science & Education, 20(2), 103–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practice of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world, a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (Eds.). (2008). Model based learning and instruction in science. Dortrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. J. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism: protocol evidence on sources of creativity in science. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 341–381). New York, NY: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition: The history of argument and explanation especially in the mathematical and biomedical sciences and arts (Vol. 1). London: Duckworth.

  • de Jong, T. (2006). Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340, 305–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Develaki, M. (2007). The model-based view of scientific theories and the structuring of school science programmes. Science & Education, 16(7), 725–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Develaki, M. (2008). Social and ethical dimension of natural sciences, complex problems of the age, interdisciplinarity, and the contribution of education. Science & Education, 17, 873–888.

  • Develaki, M. (2016). Key aspects of scientific modeling exemplified by school science models: some units for teaching contextualized scientific methodology. Interchange, 47(3), 297–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: a study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6, 37–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorn, W. S. (1975). Simulations versus models: which one and when. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 371–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhem, P. (1978). Ziel und Struktur der phusikalischen theorien. Hamburg: Meiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Taping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

  • Giere, R. N. (2010). An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese, 172(2), 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N., Bickle, J., & Mauldi, R. F. (2006). Understanding scientific reasoning. Melbourne: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2001). A new framework for teaching scientific reasoning. Argumentation, 15, 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (1999a). Science without laws. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (1999b). Using models to represent reality. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 41–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science. A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Dortrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J., O’Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B., Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Examining the relationship between students’ epistemologies of models and conceptual learning in three science domains: biology, physics, & chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 653–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandy, R. E. (1992). Theories of theories, a view from cognitive science. In J. Earman (Ed.), Inference, explanation, and other frustrations. Essays in the philosophy of science (pp. 216–233). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandy, R. E., & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and the role of inquiry in school science: analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16, 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16, 653–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modeling theory in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1982). Eine Untersuchung über den menschlichen Verstand. Stuttgart.

  • Jeyner, D. A., Majerich, D. M., & Goel, A. K. (2013). Facilitating authentic reasoning about complex systems in middle school science education. Procedia Computer Science, 16, 1043–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teacher’s professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Science Education, 27(5), 549–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1369–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kind, P., & Osborne, J. (2017). Styles of scientific reasoning: a cultural rationale for science education? Science Education, 101(1), 8–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila, T. (2011). Modelling and representing: an artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42(2), 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planing instruction to meet the intent of the next generation science standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge Unibersity.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1974). Logik der Forschung oder Psychologie der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Kritik und Erkenntnisfortschritt (pp. 1–23). Braunschweig: Vieweg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1989). Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen. Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch, Frankfurt am Main (10. Aufl.).

  • Kwon, Y.-J., Jeong, J.-S., & Park, Y.-B. (2006). Roles of abductive reasoning and prior belief in children’s generation of hypotheses about pendulum motion. Science & Education, 15, 643–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, Ι. (1974). Falsifikation und die Methodologie Wissenschaftlicher Forschungsprogramme. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Kritik und Erkenntnisfortschritt (pp. 89–189). Braunschweig: Vieweg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Landriscina, F. (2013). Simulation and learning: a model-centered approach. Springer.

  • Lawson, A. E. (2009). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery. Science Education, 94(2), 336–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawsons, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losee, J. (1990). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunetta, V. N., & Hofstein, A. (1981). Simulations in science education. Science Education, 65(3), 243–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. (Ed.) (2007). Models in science and in science education. Science & education, 16(7–8) (special issue).

  • Mellar, H., & Bliss, J. (1994). Introduction: modelling and education. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn, & C. Tompsett (Eds.), Learning with artificial worlds: computer-based modelling in the curriculum (pp. 1–8). London: the Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellar, H., Bliss, J., Boohan, R., Ogborn, J. & Tompsett, C. (Eds) (1994). Learning with artificial worlds: Computer-based modelling in the curriculum. London: the Falmer Press.

  • Mikelskis, H. F. (Ed.) (2006). Physik Didaktik: Praxishandbuch für die Sekundarstufe I und II. Cornelsen Scriptor.

  • Mikelskis-Seifert, S., & Leidner-Bodenthin, A. (2007). Unterrichtsansätze zu den Methoden physikaliscer Erkenntnisgewinnung. In S. Mikelskis-Seifert & T. Rabe (Eds.), Physik Methodik (pp. 15–42). Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M.S, & Morgan, M. (1999). Introduction. In M.S. Morgan and M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators (pp. 1–9). Cambridge University Press.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education. Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, Ν. (2008). Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry. Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 57–79). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, Ν. (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In L. Magnani, N. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 5–22). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R. (2004). Pendula, models, constructivism and reality. Science & Education, 13, 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogborn, J. (1994). Overview; the nature of modelling. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn, & C. Tompsett (Eds.), Learning with artificial worlds: computer-based modelling in the curriculum (pp. 10–15). London: the Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1109–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: a rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 1(3), 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Meta-modeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, B., diSessa, A., & Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmüller, W. (1971). Das Problem der Induktion: Humes Herausforderung und moderne Antworten. In Lenk, H. (Ed.), Neue Aspekte der Wissenschaftstheorie (pp. (13–74). Braunschweig.

  • Stöckler, M. (1995). Theoretische Modelle im Lichte der Wissenschaftstheorie. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften - Physik, 1, 16–22.

  • Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65, 381–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. (1962). Models of data in logic, methodology and philosophy of science. In E. Nagel, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1960 international congress (pp. 252–261). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tala, S. (2013). Knowledge building expertise: nanomodellers’ education as an example. Science & Education, 20, 1323–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraasen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford University Press.

  • van Jooling, W. (2004). Roles of modeling in inquiry learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT’04). Joensuu: IEEE.

  • Vosniadou, S. (1996). Towards a revised cognitive psychology for new advances in learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 6(2), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsberg, E. B. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White, B.Y (1993). Intermediate causal models: a missing link for successful science education? In R. Glaser (Ed), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol (4), 177–252.

  • White, B.Y & Frederiksen, J. (2007). Fostering reflective learning through inquiry. In J. Campione, A. Palincsar & K. Metz (2007 (Eds.), Childrens’ learning in laboratory and classroom contexts: essays in honor of Ann Brown. Taylor and Francis, 163–196.

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H.-K. (2010). Modeling a complex system: using novice-expert analysis for developing an effective technology-enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 195–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C. (2005). The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers’ explanations in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1741–1767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zangori, L., Forbres, C. T., & Schwarz, C. V. (2015). Exploring the effect of embedded scaffolding within curricular tasks on third-grade students’ model-based explanations about hydrologic cycling. Science & Education, 24, 957–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the anonymous reviewers for their substantial comments and feedback on earlier versions of the article. The author also thanks Heinz Isliker for useful discussions on computer simulations in scientific research.

Funding

This study was not funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Advice for Secondary Science Education, Hellenic Ministry of Education, Athens, Greece

    Maria Develaki

Authors
  1. Maria Develaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Develaki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Develaki, M. Using Computer Simulations for Promoting Model-based Reasoning. Sci & Educ 26, 1001–1027 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9944-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9944-9

Search

Navigation