The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners
Open accessAbstract
Modeling is a core practice in science and a central part of scientific literacy. We present theoretical and empirical motivation for a learning progression for scientific modeling that aims to make the practice accessible and meaningful for learners. We define scientific modeling as including the elements of the practice (constructing, using, evaluating, and revising scientific models) and the metaknowledge that guides and motivates the practice (e.g., understanding the nature and purpose of models). Our learning progression for scientific modeling includes two dimensions that combine metaknowledge and elements of practice—scientific models as tools for predicting and explaining, and models change as understanding improves. We describe levels of progress along these two dimensions of our progression and illustrate them with classroom examples from 5th and 6th graders engaged in modeling. Our illustrations indicate that both groups of learners productively engaged in constructing and revising increasingly accurate models that included powerful explanatory mechanisms, and applied these models to make predictions for closely related phenomena. Furthermore, we show how students engaged in modeling practices move along levels of this progression. In particular, students moved from illustrative to explanatory models, and developed increasingly sophisticated views of the explanatory nature of models, shifting from models as correct or incorrect to models as encompassing explanations for multiple aspects of a target phenomenon. They also developed more nuanced reasons to revise models. Finally, we present challenges for learners in modeling practices—such as understanding how constructing a model can aid their own sensemaking, and seeing model building as a way to generate new knowledge rather than represent what they have already learned. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 632–654, 2009
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Singer, S., & Smith, K. A. (2013) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20030 · Cited by 835
Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21006 · Cited by 294
Characterizing College Science Assessments: The Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol
Laverty, J. T., Underwood, S. M., Matz, R. L., Posey, L. A., Carmel, J. H., Caballero, M. D., Fata-Hartley, C. L., Ebert-May, D., Jardeleza, S. E., & Cooper, M. M. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162333 · Cited by 262
Clemmons, A. W., Timbrook, J., Herron, J. C., & Crowe, A. J. (2020) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.19-11-0259 · Cited by 122
Adadan, E. (2013) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9299-9 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-07-07
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 632-654
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2034341767
- Cited by
- 1,155
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 108.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.20311
- The paper
- Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.