Despite its proven added value, Modeling-based Learning (MbL) in science is not commonly incorporated into early grades science education. Following a growing body of research on using MbL in early grades, this multi-case study seeks to provide detailed descriptions of the implementation of MbL with 3 groups of pre-K children engaged in the study of three different phenomena, taught by 3 different teachers participating in a professional development program of pre-school science education. Findings across the different cases suggest that these pre-school children successfully engaged in authentic MbL activities and developed several different types of models using knowledge and experiences, as well as a variety of features of both analogical and mechanistic reasoning, agreeing with prior research of MbL with pre-school children. I use this evidence to argue that (a) different modeling/representation tools may afford different learning opportunities; (b) preschool children have modeling resources that can use in order to utilize different modeling/representation tools using MbL in natural ways of young children learning (e.g., playing). I also discuss implications related to the notion that educators may find it productive to choose among these tools depending on the children’s prior modeling experiences and the mechanism(s) to be represented.

1. Modeling-based Learning
in Pre-School Science:
Affordances of Different
Types of Student-Constructed
Models
Loucas T. Louca
Associate Professor
2022 ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

2. • Modeling-based learning has increasingly received the attention of the
science education
– Baek, Schwarz, Chen, Hokayem, & Zhan, 2011; Buckley et al., 2004; Clement, 2008;
Halloun, 2016; Jackson, Dukerich, & Hestenes, 2008; Khan, 2007; Osborne, 2014;
Schwarz et al., 2009; Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2008
• NRC (2012) categorizes modeling among the scientific practices
that K-12 students should learn to apply
• NGSS (2013) assign models and modeling a central role in science,
as means to learn science and about the nature of science.
Modeling-based Learning in Science

3. • Models and modeling are considered as integral parts of scientific
literacy providing students opportunities to understand and explain
natural phenomena (e.g., Gilbert & Justi, 2016).
• Externalized through various means and representation tools
• Student-generated models along with the process of its development
become a learning tool that enable students to understand the
mechanism underlying natural phenomena (Schwarz et al., 2009).
• This helps students develop concrete representations of their
understanding of a structure, a process, or a natural system, as well as
to use models as tools for engaging in scientific reasoning.
Modeling-based Learning in Science Education

4. What do we know about Modeling-based
Learning for young learners…

5. • Representation of physical objects
• Representation of physical entities (e.g., velocity)
• Representation of physical processes (e.g.,
accelerated motion)
• Representation of various interactions between
physical objects, physical entities and physical
processes
Student-constructed models
(Louca et al, 2011)

6. • Discourse type I: Phenomenological description of the physical
system under study
– Describe the overall physical system or talk about the story of individual physical objects
involved
– Support their ideas with everyday experiences
• Discourse type II: Operationalization of the physical systems’ story
– Describe the story of physical processes (e.g., relative motion, accelerated motion)
– References to the overall phenomenon as a reality check
• Discourse type III: Construction of algorithms
– Describe the story of physical entities
– Identify and investigate the relationships among physical entities
Different types of modeling discourse
(Louca et al, 2011)

7. What we do not know about Modeling-
based Learning for young learners…

8. • Despite the emphasis of the literature on MbL
• Only a limited number of studies have
investigated MbL among K-6 students.
• Limited research on MbL with young learners,
however, has highlighted that they are able to
engage in MbL, develop a number of different
types of models, using various features of
analogical and mechanistic reasoning
What we are missing from MbL…

9. • This is a multi-case study (Yin, 2007)
– application of Modeling-based Learning in Science
– with 3 groups of 4,5-6-year-old children.
• In an effort to to comparatively describe the
different ways that pre-school children may use
different modeling and representation tools.
Purpose

10. • Data from 3 different cases of different groups of pre-school children
(age range: 4,5-6) in Cyprus taught by 3 different teachers.
• All 3 teachers participated in the same professional development (PD)
program over the duration of a school year.
• The cases selected for this study were all teachers’ first attempt to
implement an MbL in science unit.
• Teachers developed the unit from scratch after they participated in PD
sessions about inquiry-based learning, teaching science in preschool,
and MbL in pre-school science.
• All lessons (about 40-minute duration) in each case study were
videotaped and transcribed for analysis.
Context of the study

11. Case
Number of
children
Number of
weekly
meetings
No of
MbL
cycles
Types of model representation
Paper &
Pencil
3-D
structure
Physical
representation
Case 1. Plant parts &
functions
20 6 4 X X
Case 2. Solution of
substances in water
18 3 1 X
Case 3. Shadow
formation
25 5 3 X
X
Overview of data collection

12. • Transcripts of student conversations served as the primary source of data.
• The analysis of children modeling conversations used two complementary
approaches for analyzing student conversation.
– analysis on children’s conversations in science (e.g., Ball, 1993; Gallas, 1995) built on the
interest of the science education community in classroom discourse (e.g., Kurth et al., 2002; van
Zee et al., 2001). This analysis uses transcribed children’s conversations as a gateway to
children thinking and learning experiences (Edwards & Mercer, 1995). I used discourse to
develop detailed accounts of the context and the content of the modeling conversation describing
the student contributions towards MbL.
– I coded the same discourse data using a coding scheme developed in a previous study (Louca &
Zacharia, 2011), which codes the whole class student talk on an utterance-by-utterance basis,
aimed at describing in detail the student MbL discourse in science. Codes included:
• (a) descriptions of the story of the physical objects or physical system,
• (b) descriptions of children’s experiences in support of those stories,
• (c) descriptions of physical processes involved (physical object’s behaviors), and
• (d) descriptions of physical entities involved (physical object’s characteristics).
Analysis

13. • To support the discourse analyses, I also analyzed student-constructed
models using artifact analysis adopted from Louca & Zacharia (2011).
• Codes from this analysis included the ways that children represented
different elements in their models:
– physical objects,
– physical entities,
– physical processes,
– physical interactions.
Analysis

14. • Lesson 1:
– Children collected wildflowers from the school yard.
– Each child drew a representation of their wildflower.
• Lesson 2:
– children working in 4 groups identified similarities and
differences among several wild plants they collected.
– In a whole classroom discussion that followed, they
reached a conclusion suggesting that all their collected
plants shared the same 4 parts: roots, stem, leaves,
and flowers.
– They also identified that despite those similarities, their
plants were different in the type of roots they had, the
shape and the size of their leaves, and the color, the
size, and the petal shape of the flowers.
– Made comparisons of their drawings with the actual
plant
Case study 1: Plant parts & their functions

15. • Lesson 3
– The teacher asked children to draw their findings in order
to show them to the children of the next-door classroom.
– Each group chose a different part of the plants, which they
drew independently and put together at the end, making a
large poster
– Children compared their poster with one of the real wild
plants they collected, identifying a series of
disadvantages, mostly related to the way they depicted
the information they knew about all the plants into a single
drawing.
– This, they suggested was helpful for letting others know
about that information, but on the other hand, it was
misleading in terms of what a single plant looked like.
Case study 1: Plant parts & their functions

16. • Lesson 4
– Worked on revising their model individually.
– Their teacher, however, proposed to work on
a 3-dimensional structure as their revised
representation, using materials that they
were familiar with.
– The comparative evaluation of their models
identified a different number of limitations,
this time focused on the ways they
represented each part of the wild plant and
the selection of the materials used for the
representation of the plant’s parts.
Case study 1: Plant parts & their functions

17. • Lesson 5
– Each child worked on a revision of their model, still
using 3-dimensional materials.
– An investigation of the process of transpiration prior
to this lesson, guided children to using experiences
and collecting evidence from an experiment carried
out in their schoolyard.
– Their models were substantially revised utilizing
materials for their representations that had
implications for the plant part functions such as roots
showing uptake of water, leaves represented in a
way that implied the process of water retention and
transpiration, and the stem as a vehicle for water
transportation from roots to the leaves.
Case study 1: Plant parts & their functions

18. • Lesson 6
– During the evaluation of their models,
children agreed that despite their models'
revised representation of the plants’ parts,
their representations contained little
information about the process that takes
place inside the plants’ parts.
– Children collectively decided to develop a
new model, that would contain information
about those processes (e.g., water uptake,
water transportation, transpiration), and they
discussed how 3-dimensional models had
limitations in representing this information.
– They decided to revert to a single, collective
paper-and-pencil model, having their teacher
noting in words their explanations about their
drawings of the processes.
Case study 1: Plant parts & their functions

19. Model 1
(individual
children)
Model 2
(one for all)
Model 3
(individual
children)
Model 4
(individual
children)
Model 5
(one for all)
L. 1* L. 2* L. 3* L. 1 L. 2 L. 3 L. 1 L. 2 L. 3 L. 1 L. 2 L. 3 L. 1 L. 2 L. 3
Physical
objects
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Physical
entities
100% 100% 100% 80% 20% 100%
Physical
processes
100% 100% 100% 65% 35% 100%
Physical
interactions
100% 100% 100% 55% 45% 100%
Artifact analysis of Case 1 children’s models
*Level 1 - Limited representation, *Level 2 - Partly represented, *Level 3 -Fully represented

20. • Children’s ability to use a variety of
modeling/representation media
– The idea of modeling resources (Louca, 2020)
– Also to represent the mechanism underlying the
phenomenon
• Children’s meta(-modeling) ability to choose
amongst different modeling/representation
media based on the particular needs of the task
Points to consider…

21. • Lesson 3: Proposing, discussing
and evaluating models
– After a short discussion, mostly around
the types of answer that this question
required
– Children drew on a new piece of paper
what they though happened in the water.
– We posted drawings (models) on the
white board
– Students briefly talked about their models
– We talked about the differences and the
similarities of the drawings (models)
Case study 2: Solution of substances in water

22. • Sequential approach
3 types of model depiction
• Representation of all the
“scenes” of the phenomenon
in one drawing
• Representation of the last
scene of the phenomenon

23. • Lesson 5
– Representation of the phenomenon through
”gestural or physical” means
– The teacher asked children to think about ways
to represent the shadow formation, as they
represented it through their previous models.
– Children had to think/invent ways to represent
the various physical objects taking place in the
phenomenon, the physical entities (such as
light rays) that are involved, and the
interactions between them that resulted in the
physical processes of the phenomenon.
– This discussion resulted in their collective
model in which some children function as the
“light-production cells”, holding long paper
stripes as the light rays. One child was the
object for creating the shadow (wearing a red
piece of cloth) and a child wearing a black
piece of cloth represented the shadow created.
Case study 3: Shadow formation

24. • I use this evidence to argue that
– (a) different modeling/representation tools may afford
different learning opportunities;
– (b) pre-school children have modeling resources that
can use in order to utilize different modeling/
representation tools using MbL in natural ways of young
children learning (e.g., playing);
– (c) educators may find it productive to choose among
these tools depending on children’s prior modeling
experiences and the mechanism(s) to be represented.
Discussion

25. • What about developing
models that may explain the
collection of numerical data?
– Ice melting/ freezing
– Tranfer of heat
• Children as theoretical
physicists
• You may contact me --->
• L.Louca@euc.ac.cy
Future work