Learners’ ontological categories according to their mental models of plate boundaries

Su-Kyeong   Park; Jun-Young  Oh

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Su-Kyeong Park Kyungnam University, Dept. of Science Education, Republic of KOREA
Jun-Young Oh Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Republic of KORE

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Mental Model, Plate Tectonics, Plate Boundaries, Ontological Category, Constraint Based Interaction, Korean High School Students

Abstract

The present study investigates the learners’ mental models of plate boundaries and the ontological categories according to their mental models. 116 Korean high school students were asked to draw the 3 types of plate boundaries described in the theory of plate tectonics and to respond the written test with ontological questions. In order to reveal the mental models of students, the result of drawings and interviews was analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The findings revealed that the mental models of plate boundaries were classified as one of the following: 'naïve model', 'unstable model', 'causal model', and 'conceptual model'. The learners who were categorized as the naïve mental type showed the highest proportion in the Matter ontological category. On the other hand, the learners who were categorized as the causal mental type did not appear in the Matter category, they use more Event and Constraint Based Interaction categories.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adbo, K. & Taber, K. S. (2009) Learners’ Mental Models of the Particle Nature of Matter: A study of 16-year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 757–786.

Beilfuss, M. (2004). Exploring conceptual understanding of ground-water through student's interviews and drawings. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161 – 199.

Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual changes: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61 – 82).New York: Routledge.

Chi, M. T. H. ＆ Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics, Cognition and Instruction, 10, 249-260.

Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D. & deLeeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27 – 43.

Chiou, G. L. & Anderson O. R. (2009). Mental Model Theory and an Ontology–Process Analysis changing perspectives in science education, Studies in Science Education, 10, 61–98.

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

Clement, J. (2003). Imagistic simulation in scientific model construction. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), The Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 25, pp. 258 – 263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Clement, J. (2008). The role of explanatory models in teaching for conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 417 – 452). New York: Routledge.

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

de Kleer, J. & Brown, J. S. (1983). Assumptions and ambiguities in mechanistic mental models. In D. Gentner & L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 155 – 190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gilbert, J. K. & Watts, M. (1983). The concepts, misconcepts and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.

Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J. & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3 – 17). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers..

Gilbert, J.K., Boulter, C. & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.

Gilbert, J.K., De Jong, O., Jusit, R., Treagust D.F. & Van Driel, J.H. (2002). Towards Research based Practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gilbert, J.K., Watts, D.M. & Osborne, R.J. (1985) Eliciting student views using an interviewabout-instances technique in L.H.T., West, & A.L. Pines, A. Leon (Eds), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change (pp.11–27). London: Academic Press.

Glynn, S. M., Duit, R., & Thiele, R. B. (1995). Teaching science with analogies: A strategy for constructing knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 247-273). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gobert, J. D. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 937-977.

Gobert, J. D. (2005). The effects of different learning tasks on model-building in plate tectonics: Diagramming versus explaining. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 444- 455.

Gobert, J. D. & Clement, J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus studentgenerated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jonassen, D. (1995). Operationalizing mental models: Strategies for assessing mental models to support meaningful learning and design-supportive learning environments. In J. L. Schnase & E. L. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL’95 (pp. 182–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Jung, G.-S.(2007) Alternative Conceptions of High School Students about the Crust and Interior of the Earth. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 28(3), 266-276.

Lawson, A.E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge? and What does that imply about the nature of knowledge? Science and Education, 9, 577-598.

Lee, Y. & Law, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift . International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 111- 149.

Libarkin, J. C., Anderson, S., Dahl, J., Beilfuss, M. & Boone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students' ideas about the earth: Interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education. 53, 17-26.

Lin J.-W. & Chiu, M. H. (2007). Exploring the Characteristics and Diverse Sources of Students’ Mental Models of Acids and Bases. International Journal of Science Education 29(6), 771–803.

Nersessian, N. J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Ed.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133 – 153). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Mental modeling in conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research in conceptual change (pp. 391 – 416). New York: Routledge.

Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D.Gentner and A. L. Stevens (eds) Mental models (Hillsdales, NJ:Erlbaum) 7-14.

Nunez-Oviedo, M. C., Clement, J. & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Developing complex mental models in biology through model evolution, In J. Clement & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 173-194). Dordrecht: Springer.

Oh, J.-Y. (in press). Understanding Natural Science based on Abductive Inference: Continental Drift. The Foundations of Science. DOI: 10.1007/s10699-013-9322-2.

Pata, K. & Sarapuu, T. (2006). A Comparison of Reasoning Processes in a Collaborative Modelling Environment: Learning about genetics problems using virtual chat. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11),1347–1368.

Samarapungavan, A., Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1996). Mental models of the Earth, Sun, and Moon: Indian children's cosmologies. Cognitive Development, 11, 491-521.

Sibley, D. (2005). Visual abilities and misconceptions about plate tectonics. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 471-477.

Skinner, L. (2001). Case studies of middle school students' alternative conceptions and conceptual changes concerning the theory of plate tectonics. unpublished dissertation in Auburn University, 215p.

Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H. & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing Students’ Misclassifications of Physics Concepts: An Ontological Basis for Conceptual Change. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 373- 400.

Vosniadou S., Skopeliti, I., Ikospentaki, K. (2005). Reconsidering the role of artifacts in reasoning: Children’s understanding of the globe as a model of the earth. Learning and Instruction 15 , 333-351.

Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535 – 585.

Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 123 – 184.

Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45 – 69.

Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research; State of the art and future direction. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, and M. Carretero(Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change, (pp.3-13). NY. Pergamon,

White, R., Gunstone, R., Eltermann, E., Macdonald, I., McKittrick, B., Mills, D. & Mulhall, P. (1995). Students' perceptions of teaching and learning in first-year university physics. Research in Science Education, 25, 465-478.