Examination of pre-service physics teachers’ epistemologies of scientific models and their model formation during model-based inquiry process

According to Boulter and Gilbert (2000), the modelling and models are important for three major reasons: “first, modelling and models are explicitly recognized in science and science education; second, they play a major role in the nature of science and its achievements; and third, they play a major role in technology” (p. 344). Justi and Gilbert (2002b) advocate that teachers should have the following knowledge and ability in order to help their students in learning science:

• Have a comprehensive understanding of the nature of a model in general,

• Know when, how, and why, the general idea of models and specific scientific or historical models should be introduced in their classes,

• Have the ability to develop good teaching models-those that are created with the scientific purpose of facilitating students’ understanding of scientific or historical models,

• Have the skills needed to construct modelling activities in their classes.

Pre-service physics teachers involved in model-based scientific inquiry in this study to be able to enhance their epistemologies of scientific models and their model construction. This research reached the following conclusions: First, model building and formation in inquiry facilitate changes in students’ epistemic reasoning around models and enrich their understanding of what a model is, what it may be used for, and how models are built and changed. Second, instructional focus on scientific models and model based investigations influences students’ reconceptualization about models and supports a shift in nature, function and inquiry role of their models. As a result, students can develop models of natural phenomena, test and revise their models and gather evidence for explanations. Finally, model-based inquiry provides bridging the gap between belief and practice so that students can reflect their epistemologies into their models.

One limitation of this study is the research design where there was no control group. However, the participants had not had any experiences with modelling and did not have any involvement with model-based instruction in any other courses they took during the research. Another limitation is the subject. The pre-service physics teachers created models related to dynamics due to the subject of the activities. The participants’ model quality and their answers to the model questionnaire during the post application might be different if the subject had been different physics subject. The current study contributes to the science education literature toward a better understanding of benefits of MBI as an instructional strategy in an authentic context. Model-based inquiry would be embedded in science teacher education programs to improve teacher candidates’ knowledge about models and their modelling activities.