Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Models are central to the practice and teaching of science. Yet people often fail to grasp how scientific models explain their observations of the world. Realizing the explanatory power of a model may require aligning its relational structure to that of the observable phenomena. In the present study, we tested whether relational scaffolding—guided comparisons between observable and modeled events—enhances children’s understanding of scientific models. We tested relational scaffolding during instruction of third graders about the day/night cycle, a topic that involves relating Earth-based observations to a space-based model of Earth’s rotation. Experiment 1 found that participants (N = 108) learned more from instruction that incorporated relational scaffolding. Experiment 2 (N = 99) found that guided comparison—not merely viewing observable and modeled events—is a critical component of relational scaffolding, especially for children with low initial knowledge. Relational scaffolding could be applied broadly to assist the many students who struggle with science.

Keywords

relational learning structural alignment comparison relational scaffolding science education model-based instruction open data open materials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

T. K.

Romo

L. F.

(1996). Building a coherent conception of HIV transmission: A new approach to AIDS education. In Medin

D. L.

(Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 35, pp. 193–241). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Chi

M. T. H.

Roscoe

R. D.

Slotta

J. D.

Roy

Chase

C. C.

(2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36, 1–61.

Clement

(1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241–1257.

Davis

M. J.

(2010). Contrast coding in multiple regression analysis: Strengths, weaknesses, and utility of popular coding structures. Journal of Data Science, 8(1), 61–73.

DeSutter

Stieff

(2017). Teaching students to think spatially through embodied actions: Design principles for learning environments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), Article 22. doi:10.1186/s41235-016-0039-y

Dunn

L. M.

Dunn

D. M.

(2007). PPVT-4: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessments.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.

Frick

Möhring

Newcombe

N. S.

(2014). Picturing perspectives: Development of perspective-taking abilities in 4- to 8-year-olds. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 386. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00386

10.

Gentner

Anggoro

F. K.

Klibanoff

R. S.

(2011). Structure mapping and relational language support children’s learning of relational categories. Child Development, 82, 1173–1188.

11.

Gentner

Markman

A. B.

(1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.

12.

Gentner

Toupin

(1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cognitive Science, 10, 277–300.

13.

Goldwater

M. B.

Gentner

(2015). On the acquisition of abstract knowledge: Structural alignment and explication in learning causal system categories. Cognition, 137, 137–153.

14.

Goldwater

M. B.

Schalk

(2016). Relational categories as a bridge between cognitive and educational research. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 729–757.

15.

Holyoak

K. J.

Koh

(1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15, 332–340.

16.

Jee

B. D.

Uttal

D. H.

Gentner

Manduca

Shipley

T. F.

Tikoff

. . . Sageman

(2010). Commentary: Analogical thinking in geoscience education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58, 2–13.

17.

Kalyuga

(2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.

18.

Kontra

Lyons

D. J.

Fischer

S. M.

Beilock

S. L.

(2015). Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychological Science, 26, 737–749.

19.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

20.

Kurtz

K. J.

Miao

C. H.

Gentner

(2001). Learning by analogical bootstrapping. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 417–446.

21.

Lindgren

Tscholl

Wang

Johnson

(2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187.

22.

Mayer

R. E.

Moreno

(2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.

23.

McCloskey

(1983). Naive theories of motion. In Gentner

Stevens

A. L.

(Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299–324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

24.

McNamara

D. S.

Kintsch

Songer

N. B.

Kintsch

(1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.

25.

Morgan

P. L.

Farkas

Hillemeier

M. M.

Maczuga

(2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45, 18–35.

26.

Morrow

C. A.

(2000). Kinesthetic astronomy: The sky time lesson. The Physics Teacher, 38(4), Article 252. doi:10.1119/1.880520

27.

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

28.

Nersessian

N. J.

(2010). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

29.

Plummer

J. D.

Kocareli

Slagle

(2014). Learning to explain astronomy across moving frames of reference: Exploring the role of classroom and planetarium-based instructional contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 1083–1106.

30.

Richland

L. E.

Zur

Holyoak

K. J.

(2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316, 1128–1129.

31.

Sadler

P. M.

Coyle

Miller

J. L.

Cook-Smith

Dussault

Gould

R. R.

(2010). The Astronomy and Space Science Concept Inventory: Development and validation of assessment instruments aligned with the K–12 national science standards. Astronomy Education Review, 8(1), Article 010111. doi:10.3847/AER2009024

32.

Shtulman

(2017). Scienceblind: Why our intuitive theories about the world are so often wrong. New York, NY: Basic Books.

33.

Sweller

(1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.

34.

Thurstone

T. G.

Thurstone

L. L.

(1962). Primary mental abilities tests. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.

35.

Vosniadou

Brewer

W. F.

(1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123–183.

36.

Vosniadou

Skopeliti

(2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science & Education, 23, 1427–1445.

37.

Vosniadou

Skopeliti

(2017). Is it the Earth that turns or the Sun that goes behind the mountains? Students’ misconceptions about the day/night cycle after reading a science text. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 2027–2051.

38.

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

Krull

J. L.

(1996). Experimental personality designs: Analyzing categorical by continuous variable interactions. Journal of Personality, 64, 1–48.

39.

Yuan

Uttal

Gentner

(2017). Analogical processes in children’s understanding of spatial representations. Developmental Psychology, 53, 1098–1114.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.58 MB

0.14 MB

Relational Scaffolding Enhances Children’s Understanding of Scientific Models

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material