Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

This set of resources exemplifies ways in which practical work can be

used alongside a pedagogical approach known as ‘model-based inquiry’.
Model-based inquiry is based on the generating, testing and revising of
scientific models. It is different to typical school science investigations, in
that it is centred round a collaborative and co-operative style of learning
and places emphasis on the explanatory model.

How this introduction is organised

Quick start guide:
The quick start guide set out the bigger picture of what model-based
inquiry involves and how it can relate to practical work in science.

For more detail about the points raised in the quick start guide go to the
relevant sections which follow:

Section 1: An ‘authentic’ approach to learning science

Section 2: How is model-based inquiry different to the way

investigations are typically carried out?

Section 3: The Practical Work for Learning resources and transferring

the approach.

Section 4: Research findings

References

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 1 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

Quick start guide to model-based inquiry

What is model-based inquiry?
Practical work is used as a method of teaching for a range of purposes (e.g. skill
development, application of concepts). Model-based inquiry is based on the
generating, testing and revising of scientific models, with the aim of developing
evidence-based explanations of the way the natural world works. This is the
way in which many scientists work (Windschitl et al., 2008), so model-based
inquiry is both a teaching approach and an authentic representation of how
science produces explanations (see Figure 1).

Model-based inquiry is different to typical school science investigations, in that

it is centred round a collaborative and co-operative style of learning and places
emphasis on the explanatory model. In a model-based inquiry students are
expected to:

 Use knowledge of a model to predict the outcomes of experiments, and

explain their reasoning.

 Test predictions against evidence collected by observation and experiment.

 Engage in questioning and discussion about how the data they have
collected can be explained in terms of the model.

 Develop explanations of scientific phenomena from models.

For school science, model-based inquiry provides a framework for engaging

students with the science content and ideas behind a practical activity. This
kind of ‘minds on’ activity is critical to enhance students’ learning of scientific
knowledge and insight into how scientists work (Abrahams and Millar, 2009).

Models in science
Models are a mentally visualisable way of linking theory with experiment. They enable
predictions to be formulated and tested by experiment (Gilbert, 1998).

There are many different types of model. These include

• Consensus model – a model which is widely accepted by the scientific

community. For example the Bohr model of an atom, or a mathematical
relationship between variables.

• Historical model – a previous consensus model which has been replaced by

a new, more useful model. For example the plum pudding model of an
atom.

• Mental model – an individual’s internal representation (in the mind) of

information in a form which is useful for solving problems. For example a
flow diagram of an ecosystem.

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 2 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

• Teaching model – a model which has been specifically produced to teach a

difficult concept. For example, ripple tanks used to teach about waves.

Introducing models
See the PowerPoint presentation: 'Scientific models?'

What does model-based inquiry look like in the classroom?

The summary on the following page has been prepared using a range of literature on the subject, and is
designed to introduce you to the different elements of a model-based inquiry lesson and how these might be
structured together.

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 3 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
 Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

THE TEACHER
In the classroom:
Plan to establish effective discussions and critical thinking:
 Encourage students to share their own ideas (mental models) for explaining the phenomenon, where possible.
 Listen to discussion – ask open questions which facilitate pupils’ thinking and idea expression.
 Consider the composition of groups, and how this could affect group discussion.
 Present the consensus model at an appropriate point in the lesson (see 3 possible lesson structures outlined below).
 Facilitate the critical evaluation of models by students, by challenging misconceptions as they arise and presenting
alternative / more sophisticated models for the students to analyse the data against.

THE LESSON

LESSON STRUCTURES
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
-Students’ mental models are -Simple or incomplete model is -Recalling a previously taught
basis for predictions basis for predictions. model and analysing its
-Data collected -Activity to engage deeply with limitations

-Consensus model presented model -Developing a more sophisticated

after data collection -Critical evaluation and model

-Critical analysis of both models refinement of simple model -Applying the new model in a
different context

MODEL-BASED INQUIRY – Central to the lesson

Teacher scaffolding Small group discussion Model-based inquiry

(Reiser, 2004; Wood et al. (Brown et al. 1989) (Windschitl et al. 2008)
1976)

Checking Listening to and Questioning Social Applying,

prior promoting construction understanding,
learning dialogue evaluating and
refining models

Using assessment  Why did that happen?

 Is this explanation supported Use of group talk to
for learning
by the data? analyse the effectiveness
opportunities to
 How does the evidence of models, compare and
identify and
support/contradict the model? contrast models and
challenge
explain data, and refine
misconceptions.  What results would you expect
if it was a good model? models in light of new
data.
 How would you check it is a
good model?

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 4 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

Section 1: An ‘authentic’ approach to learning science

Scientific inquiry is one of the processes used to develop scientific knowledge.
However, it does not necessarily represent an effective pedagogic approach for
learning scientific theories in school science.

School science investigations are often reduced to a series of easy to follow

steps (Donnelly et al., 1996). This ‘painting by numbers’ approach can lead to
students mechanistically applying a set of common, rote-learned questions, in
the same sequence, to all investigation contexts. It is also often assumed that
theories will emerge from the evidence; that by collecting data and analysing
it, students will be able to draw conclusions that explain the data. This is
known as ‘induction’. Research has shown that viewing inquiry as an inductive
process is a flawed idea. We need theories to make the link between data and
explanations, and students need access to these theories if they are to be
expected to develop explanations (Driver et al., 2000).

The diagram below (Fig. 1) presents a more authentic model for scientific
reasoning. Through observation and measurement, scientists collect data on
the real world. Scientists also generate models to explain the behaviour of the
real world, which they can use to make predictions. They then compare their
predictions with the data. If there is agreement between the prediction and
the data this increases the scientists’ confidence in the model which provides
an explanation for this particular phenomenon. If there is disagreement
between the prediction and the data, scientists might question the model, the
reasoning that led to the prediction, or the quality of the data. If the model is
brought into question it will be revised and the process begins again.

Fig. 1 Giere’s 1991 diagrammatic representation of the interaction between reasoning,

theory, and argument in the development of scientific ideas.

Key ideas from this framework for scientific reasoning

 Explanations of scientific phenomena are developed from theories or
models based on the theories. This is a creative process. There is no direct
route from data to explanation.
 Predictions are tested against evidence derived from observation and

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 5 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

experiment.
 Knowledge of a theory or model is used to predict the outcomes of
experiments. Theory comes before, and informs observations and
experimental planning.
 Scientists engage in questioning and discussion about how the data they
have collected can be explained in terms of their theory-based models.
 Scientists rarely work in isolation. Research is more of a social activity
where small groups discuss, question, postulate, explain, disagree or propose
alternative explanations and interpretations of data, based on what is already
known about the problem. This style of collaborative and co-operative learning
lies at the heart of model-based inquiry.

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 6 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

Section 2: How is model-based inquiry different from the way investigations are
typically carried out?
Model-based inquiry illustrates one possible approach to what is meant by
‘minds on’ in relation to practical work.

General teaching approaches used in model-based inquiry

It is useful to think about when and how you will use question and answer
sessions, and how you will prompt students’ discussions. Developing these
discussions may be familiar in school science lessons, but what is suggested here
is very different. It is very specific, with questioning linked to practical work and
the models which help to explain data.

Support in managing and organising peer discussions and the pedagogies

associated with these activities can be found in the argumentation resources in
this project. Here are some strategies you might consider:

 Encourage students to share their own ideas (mental models) for explaining
the phenomenon, where possible.
 Listen to discussions and ask open questions which facilitate pupils’ thinking
and idea expression.
 Consider the composition of groups. Use strategies for facilitating discussion
and feedback such as think-pair-share, envoys, 30 second group
presentations.
 Present the consensus model at an appropriate point in the lesson (this may
be at the start to compare with another competing model, after data
collection to compare against students own model or at the end of the lesson
to compare to pupils revised models.
 Facilitate the critical evaluation of models by students, by challenging
misconceptions as they arise and presenting more sophisticated models for
the students to analyse the data against.

Strategies used in model-based inquiry

A model-based inquiry lesson includes:

Teacher scaffolding: Small group discussion: Model-based inquiry:

Teacher-supported prompting, Social construction of Understanding and applying
dialogue and plenaries, making knowledge. the model(s), which needs to
links with prior learning. (Brown et al., 1989) be presented explicitly.
(Reiser, 2004; Wood et al., (Windschitl et al., 2008)
1976)

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 7 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

Introducing models

See the PowerPoint presentation: 'What is a model?'

All three components are essential within a model-based inquiry learning

sequence. Through these students are introduced to new ways of talking and
thinking about science practical work.

Key conversations

The diagram below (Fig. 2) from Windschitl et al. (2008, p.955) summarises the
key conversations within a model-based inquiry. As students gain experience
with guided forms of investigation, they become more competent inquirers by
‘internalising’ the conversations – eventually asking themselves the relevant
questions without prompting.

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 8 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

Fig. 2 Developing defensible explanations of the way the natural world works

(Windschitl et al., 2008)

The scientific model can be introduced and used at different points in an

inquiry; before data collection to frame a prediction and the design of a
suitable experiment to test the prediction, or after data collection to frame the
analysis of the results. The teacher’s role is then to support student learning
through discussion and feedback.

Small group discussion

Small group discussions should be student-centred; structured, prompted,

monitored and followed-up by teachers but not dominated by them. Teacher-
led question and answer sessions may include scaffolding through cueing,
corroboration or disagreement, further explanation and coaching.

Small group discussion and teacher-led question and answer sessions can be
used in isolation or in combination. For example, feedback from discussions
can be linked with teacher comments which evaluate and reflect on discussion
outcomes or provide further explanation.

Scaffolding learning
Questions which might be used to involve students in explaining and
interpreting data, and comparing and critiquing models in light of evidence
include:
 Why did that happen? (requires an explanation that may expose
misconceptions)
 Is this explanation … (given by students or the teacher) … supported by the
data?
 Based on what you know about … (topic x), what do you predict would
happen when … / what data would you expect to collect if … you carried out
an experiment like this?
 How does the evidence collected support/contradict the model?
 How would you use this equation to design an experiment to check it is an
accurate model/ description?
 What results would you expect if it was a good model?

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 9 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

Section 3: The Practical Work for Learning resources and transferring the approach
The quick start guide identifies three possible structures for model-based
inquiry lessons. Each of these is exemplified by one or more of the Practical
Work for Learning lessons.

Structure 1

Key features
Students use their own ideas (mental models) to make a prediction about the
outcome(s) of an experiment.
A consensus model is presented once students have collected data / made
observations.
Students’ own models and the consensus model are critiqued in terms of their
potential for predicting and explaining outcomes.

Exemplar lessons
 Gathering evidence to test models of colour vision and
 The combustion of iron wool
Small group discussion

In the colour vision lesson, students work in small groups to make a prediction
in the form of a map of colour vision for their field of view. They test their
prediction and refine their model in light of the evidence. Finally they consider
the relationship between their map of colour vision and the consensus model
for the arrangement of cones in the retina.

In the iron wool lesson, students work in small groups to predict what will
happen to the mass of iron wool when it burns. They watch a teacher
demonstration which shows that the mass increases. This outcome is often
very surprising for students whose experiences of burning usually result in a
loss of mass. Students are supported in using the particle model and the
equation for the reaction to explain the increase in mass.

Scaffolding learning

There is evidence that struggling with a problem before being told the solution
may ‘prime’ students’ thinking, making them more receptive to the
explanation of the problem, even if their own interpretations are not accurate
(Schwartz and Bransford, 1998). As tools for reasoning, mental models are a
product of science education which should be explicitly acknowledged.
Constructing mental models and the new connections that they elicit
(Kahneman and Tversky, 1982) is a role of scaffolding in inquiry learning.

How do I transfer this approach to new contexts?

This approach is not suitable for all kinds of science practical. To decide

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 10 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

whether or not to use this approach, you should consider whether students
can be expected to hold or develop their own mental model.

Some models require a developed capacity in abstract thinking in order to

visualise, understand and explain them (Gilbert, 2004) and this raises issues
about matching the age and ability of the target audience to model complexity.
For example, from their own experience, students might have a useful (if
incomplete) mental model about how an object will fall compared with a
lighter object. They may not have a useful model for bonding that will support
explanations of energy changes in chemical reactions.

Structure 2

Key features
A simple or incomplete model is presented first for students to use to predict
experimental outcomes.
Activities are devised to make sure students engage deeply with the model.
The model is critiqued and refined to fit data from the experiment.

Exemplar lesson
 Using a ‘pot model’ to represent osmosis
Small group discussion

This lesson involves students collaborating to construct a pot model to

represent osmosis between a plant cell and surrounding solution. The pot
model is related to a 2-dimensional model, and these are used to predict
outcomes of an experiment. Simple models can help students to imagine what
might be going on ‘beneath the observable surface’ as they manipulate
variables and make observations in their experiments. This gives purpose to
the manipulations and provides a perspective for thinking and talking about
the observations (Solomon, 1999).

Scaffolding learning

When a simple model is provided that is within students’ current

understanding, it can be refined through cognitive conflict. If the simple model
does not provide a sufficient explanation for the data, a better model is
needed. Cognitive conflict has been used in science education as a method to
bring about cognitive shifts since the 1980s (Driver et al., 1985). Teachers can
help to support the process where students refine their models, by highlighting
the added explanatory or predictive power of the new model.

How do I transfer this approach to new contexts?

This approach is not suitable for all kinds of science practical. To decide
whether to use this approach, you should consider whether students have
previously been introduced to incomplete or naïve scientific models. For
example, students have been taught about energy and electricity in primary

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 11 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

and early secondary education. Their models must be refined further if

students are to use them to explain the phenomena they will engage with in
more advanced science lessons. Processes which appear in the curriculum at
various stages and at varying levels of complexity provide other possible
examples, such as photosynthesis.

Structure 3

Key features
Recalling a previously taught model and examining its limitations.
Developing a more advanced model.
Applying the more advanced model in different contexts.

Exemplar lesson
 The effect of concentration on rate
Small group discussion

In this lesson sequence, students discuss and evaluate collision theory as a

model for rate of reaction and move towards a mathematical model, the rate
equation, which enables quantitative predictions to be made. They determine
the rate equation for the reaction of marble chips with hydrochloric acid, and
analyse data to deduce the rate equation for other reactions.

Scaffolding learning

Teachers can scaffold the transition to use of refined models to predict

and explain phenomena.

How do I transfer this approach to new contexts?

This approach is not suitable for all kinds of science practical. To decide
whether to use this approach, you should consider whether the concept is one
in which the consensus model presented to students is different at different
stages of their learning. A model is good one if it helps to explain what you
want to explain, but as students progress more complex models are often
needed. By exploring the limitations of previous models, students will be able
to see why the previous model is now insufficient and why a new model is
needed.

For example, osmosis is normally taught by considering solutions separated by

a partially permeable membrane. When osmosis between plant cells is
introduced, a more sophisticated model must be introduced to take account of
the osmotic pressure applied by the plant cell walls. Other examples include
how understanding food chains precedes food webs, and how an overview of
transfer of respiratory gases precedes the model of reactions inside a red
blood cell leading to uptake and release of oxygen at the appropriate locations
in the body.

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 12 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

Section 4: Research findings

What does the research have to say about…

… model-based inquiry and authentic approaches to science inquiry?

 A definition from Quintana et al. (2004) synthesises how the literature
describes scientific inquiry: ‘the process of posing questions and
investigating them with empirical data, either through direct manipulation of
variables via experiments or constructing comparisons using existing data
sets’ (p. 341).
 The ‘scientific method’, observed in school investigations, has limited
emphasis on explaining trends and patterns using science knowledge; where
models/theories are considered, this is as an end product (conclusion) which
is not talked about (Windschitl et al., 2008).
 School science investigations are often simplified to a series of basic steps in
order to enhance students’ success, leading to the mechanistic application of
rote-learned questions to all investigation contexts (Donnelly et al., 1996).
 Learning through practical work in an authentic science curriculum requires
the acquisition of an acceptable understanding of what a model is and how
modelling takes place (Gilbert, 2004).

…the importance of small group discussion?

 Science should be presented as a process in which knowledge is socially
constructed, and where discussion is central to the process (Driver et al.,
2000).
 Science classrooms need to offer opportunities for students to articulate
reasons for supporting a particular claim; to attempt to persuade or convince
their peers; to express doubts; to ask questions; to relate alternate views;
and to point out what is not known. (Driver et al., 2000).
 Social practices shared by all scientists, including asking questions,
developing and using models, analysing and interpreting data and
constructing explanations contribute to a better science education which
develops and improves student learning and offers a more accurate
understanding of the ways in which scientists work (Osborne and Patterson,
2011).
 Often the collection of data and its presentation dominate practical lessons
compared with discussion about the inferences from the experiment. Leach
and Scott (2002) suggest that these types of opportunities for internalisation
through discussion need to be built into any teaching sequence that involves
an empirical inquiry.

…’minds on’ practical work?

 Students spend too much time ‘following recipes’ without understanding
why they are doing it, and the quality of practical work is very varied (SCORE,
2008).
 Too much practical work is focussed on doing rather than thinking and little

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 13 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

or no time is set aside for discussion, argument and negotiation of meaning.

(Hodson, 1998).
 Model-based inquiry involves small group activity and discussion which
engages students more deeply with the theory involved in practical work
(Windschitl et al., 2008).
 Struggling with a problem before being told the solution may make students
more receptive to the explanation of the problem, even if their own
interpretations are not accurate (Schwartz and Bransford, 1998).

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 14 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

References

Key references in bold.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989). ‘Situated cognition and the
culture of learning’. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Available online
at [Link]/ ifi/ resources/ museumeducation/ [Link]
Bruner, J. S. (1999). The Processes of Education (12th ed.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Cartier, J. L. (2000). Using a modeling approach to explore scientific
epistemology with high school biology students. Research report 99-1 for the
National Center for Improving Student Learning & Achievement in
Mathematics & Science. Available online at
[Link]
Donnelly, J.F., Buchan, A.S., Jenkins, E.W., Laws, P.M. and Welford,
A.G. (1996). Investigations by Order: Policy, curriculum and science teachers’
work under the Education Reform Act. pp.260. Nafferton: Studies in
Education
Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000). ‘Establishing the norms of
scientific argumentation in classrooms’. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., and Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science.
Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
Gilbert, J.K. (1998). Explaining with models. In [Link] (Ed.), ASE Guide
to Secondary Science Education (pp.159–174). Hatfield: The Association for
Science Education.
Gilbert, J.K. (2004). ‘Models and Modelling: Routes to More Authentic
Science Education’. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 2(2), 115–130.
Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding Scientific Reasoning (3rd ed.). Fort Worth,
TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In Kahneman,
D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics
and biases (pp.201-208). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leach, J. and Scott, P. (2002). 'Designing and evaluating science teaching
sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and
a social constructivist perspective on learning'. Studies in Science Education,
38, 115–142.
Millar, R. and Abrahams, I. (2009). 'Practical work: making it more
effective'. School Science Review, 91(334), 59-64.
Osborne, J. F. and Patterson, A. (2011). ‘Scientific argument and explanation:

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 15 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]
Model-based inquiry and practical work – an introduction

A necessary distinction?’ Science Education, 95(4), 627–638

Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza,
E., Edelson, D. and Soloway, E. (2004). 'A Scaffolding Design Framework for
Software to Support Science Inquiry'. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3),
337-386.
Reiser, B., J. (2004). 'Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of
structuring and problematizing student work'. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Schwartz, D. L. and Bransford, J. D. (1998). 'A Time for Telling'. Cognition and
Instruction, 16(4), 475-522.
Solomon, J. (1999). Envisionment in practical work: Helping pupils to imagine
concepts while carrying out experiments. In Leach, J. and Paulsen, A. (Eds.),
Practical work in science education: Recent research studies (pp.60–74).
Roskilde/Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Roskilde University Press/Kluwer.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. and Braaten, M. (2008). 'Beyond the scientific
method: Model based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school
science investigations.’ Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S. and Ross, G. (1976). 'The role of tutoring in problem
solving.’ Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89-100.

Nuffield Practical Work for Learning: Model-based inquiry • General introduction page 16 of 16
© Nuffield Foundation 2013 • downloaded from [Link]