SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Turkish Science Education / 2013 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2

Learners' ontological categories according to their mental models of plate boundaries

Su-Kyeong PARK
Jun-Young OH
Pages
17–34
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings revealed that the mental models of plate boundaries were classified as one of the following: 'naïve model', 'unstable model', 'causal model', and 'conceptual model'.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study investigates the learners mental models of plate boundaries and the ontological categories according to their mental models. 116 Korean high school students were asked to draw the 3 types of plate boundaries described in the theory of plate tectonics and to respond the written test with ontological questions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In order to reveal the mental models of students, the result of drawings and interviews was analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that the mental models of plate boundaries were classified as one of the following: 'naïve model', 'unstable model', 'causal model', and 'conceptual model'.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The present study investigates the learners mental models of plate boundaries and the ontological categories according to their mental models. 116 Korean high school students were asked to draw the 3 types of plate boundaries described in the theory of plate tectonics and to respond the written test with ontological questions. In order to reveal the mental models of students, the result of drawings and interviews was analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The findings revealed that the mental models of plate boundaries were classified as one of the following: 'naïve model', 'unstable model', 'causal model', and 'conceptual model'. The learners who were categorized as the naïve mental type showed the highest proportion in the Matter ontological category. On the other hand, the learners who were categorized as the causal mental type did not appear in the Matter category, they use more Event and Constraint Based Interaction categories.

🔖

Cite This Article

PARK, S., OH, J. (2022). Learners' ontological categories according to their mental models of plate boundaries. Journal of Turkish Science Education, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 17–34. https://ajindex.com/articles/568516

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Adbo, K. & Taber, K. S. (2009) Learners’ Mental Models of the Particle Nature of Matter: A study of 16-year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 757–786. Beilfuss, M. (2004). Exploring conceptual understanding of ground-water through student's interviews and drawings. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161 – 199. Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual changes: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61 – 82).New York: Routledge. Chi, M. T. H. & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics, Cognition and Instruction, 10, 249-260.
  2. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D. & deLeeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27 – 43. Chiou, G. L. & Anderson O. R. (2009). Mental Model Theory and an Ontology–Process Analysis changing perspectives in science education, Studies in Science Education, 10, 61–98. Clement, J. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism: Protocol evidence on sources of creativity in science. In J. Glover, R. Ronning, & C. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: Assessment, theory and research (pp. 341 – 381). New York: Plenum. Clement, J. (2003). Imagistic simulation in scientific model construction. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), The Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 25, pp. 258 – 263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Clement, J. (2008). The role of explanatory models in teaching for conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 417 – 452). New York: Routledge. Clement, J. & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Model based learning and instruction in science. NewYork: Springer. de Kleer, J. & Brown, J. S. (1983). Assumptions and ambiguities in mechanistic mental models. In D. Gentner & L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 155 – 190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gilbert, J. K. & Watts, M. (1983). The concepts, misconcepts and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
  3. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C.