Understanding of Middle School Students Cognitive Collaboration in Group Modeling on Blood Circulation

Abstract

Scientists generate, evaluate, and modify models to explain phenomena and communicate with others. Modeling is also significant in science education because it allows students to generate, evaluate, and modify the explanation of phenomena in terms of epistemic practice. In this study, the group modeling-based inquiry lessons about blood circulation were designed to develop middle school students modeling abilities through learning by cognitive collaboration. With these, this study aimed to understand the epistemic process through cognitive collaboration in group modeling-based learning. The study is consisted of following three parts. The study of Patterns of Group Model Development and Factors Influencing Reasoning Process in Collaborative Modeling aimed to explore the patterns of model development and the factors that led to differences in reasoning among several groups developing one-way circulation models. Fourteen students in gifted science education center participated in this study. Participants engaged in group modeling activities about one-way blood flow in the heart. After analyzing discourse, the patterns of model development were identified as the unchanged, the added, and the elaborated. The patterns of model development were decided by interaction within group members. The high-level reasoning process necessary for strong scientific argument was found in the elaborated pattern. The analogy model activity and the cognitive conflict within groups were the factors that influenced high-level reasoning. Based on the finding from of the study of Patterns of Group Model Development and Factors Influencing Reasoning Process in Collaborative Modeling that shaped the critical role of evaluation for model development, the study of Epistemological Features and Model Qualities Depending on the Model Evaluation Levels aimed to explore epistemological features and model qualities depending on the model evaluation levels and to identify reasoning processes revealed in a high-level of model evaluation. 34 students in K middle school participated in three modeling-based lessons. The third lesson in which students drew diagrams of blood circulation as group model was chosen for analyzing the epistemological features and model qualities. The model evaluation levels were defined as Levels 1 to 4 based on the evaluation criteria

the higher levels reflected a greater depth of critical thought and metacognitive monitoring concerning the changeable nature of models and the explanatory nature of the model. At Level 4, students evaluated the explanatory nature of the model in terms of the processes and the mechanisms of the phenomena depicted. This evaluation was based on the epistemological belief of knowing that the model constructed within a group should be evaluated for further development and alteration. In the highest level of model evaluation, reasoning processes through cognitive collaboration were well-expressed by statements concerning monitoring ones own and/or others understanding. Based on this finding of the study of Epistemological Features and Model Qualities Depending on the Model Evaluation Levels, the study of Expression of Statements of the Deep Learning Approach and Cognitive Collaboration in Group modeling aimed to identify the differences of expression of statements of deep learning approach (SD: Statements of the deep learning approach) according to the features of group modeling activities and to explore cognitive collaboration during group modeling processes focusing on students SD. Four students among participants in the study of Epistemological Features and Model Qualities Depending on the Model Evaluation Levels were selected for case study. They engaged in three modeling-based lessons about blood circulation. The dominant SD categories found in each lesson varied because of the different properties relevant to the modeling. Individual SD influenced collaborative modeling through the deep reasoning process. Cognitive collaboration involved cognitive scaffolding and critical monitoring: cognitive scaffolding contributed to the generation and elaboration of the model, whereas critical monitoring contributed to the evaluation and modification of the model. These findings could contribute to understand how cognitive collaboration occurs during group modeling and have significant implications on how to design and implement group modeling lessons where students experience authentic epistemic practice in science classroom.