Models and Modelling in Science and Science Education
This chapter discusses the nature and roles of models in science, and in science education. It is argued that models and modelling are important in science teaching both because of the need to authentically reflect the importance of modelling in science i
- PDF / 396,115 Bytes
- 16 Pages / 612 x 792 pts (letter) Page_size
- 7 Downloads / 319 Views
20. MODELS AND MODELLING IN SCIENCE AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
This chapter discusses the nature and roles of models in science, and in science education. It is argued that models and modelling are important in science teaching both because of the need to authentically reflect the importance of modelling in science itself, and because of the pedagogic role of models. It is suggested that effective teaching practice requires teachers to distinguish these two different roles of models in the science classroom. There are extensive literatures relating to the role of models in the practice of science, and to the use of models in science teaching, and the present chapter sets out to introduce readers to some key ideas about this important topic. WHAT ARE MODELS?
A model can be understood as something that stands for something else, but which provides an affordance that goes beyond a simple representation, thus allowing the model to be a tool for some kind of action. Sometimes that may be a physical action, but often models used in science are primarily thinking tools. In particular, models are used to develop and test scientific explanations (Gilbert, 1998). It is in the nature of models then to be different from what they are modelling. One key feature is that models are often simpler. Many phenomena that scientists study are complex and models can offer carefully selected simplifications. One example would be Daisyworld which was used to explore an idea about the role of feedback cycles in natural ecosystems in maintaining stability despite perturbations. Daisyworld was designed to test an aspect of James Lovelock’s Gaia theory which suggested that the natural environment needs to be understood in terms of complex interactions between physical, geological and biological features. Lovelock argued that the evolution of life on earth involved the development of complex interactions that, within certain limits, worked to keep conditions stable. One problem in understanding the Earth’s hospitality for life is how the planet has remained suitable for life despite significant changes in the Sun’s energy output (as a result of the gradual shifts in the Sun’s composition due to the nuclear reactions that cause the Sun to shine). All other things being equal, the Earth should have got a lot hotter – and so should either have been too cold for complex life when such lifeforms first appeared, or be too hot for complex life now. Yet the fossil record K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science Education, 263–278. © 2017 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
K. S. TABER
shows that the climate must have remained moderately stable over periods when the Sun’s output has changed considerably. The geological record shows that there have certainly been many shifts in the Earth’s climate but these have never been extreme enough to threaten life. Lovelock suspected there were feedback cycles that maintained conditions within certain bounds. The biota on the model world, Daisyworld, comprised of just two varieties of daisies (black and white) w
Data Loading...
