Interchange

DOI 10.1007/s10780-016-9277-7

Key-Aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified

by School Science Models: Some Units for Teaching
Contextualized Scientific Methodology

Maria Develaki1

Received: 22 September 2015 / Accepted: 6 February 2016

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract Models and modeling are core elements of scientific methods and
consequently also are of key importance for the conception and teaching of sci-
entific methodology. The epistemology of models and its transfer and adaption to
nature of science education are not, however, simple themes. We present some
conceptual units in which school science models are used for exemplifying aspects
and issues that we consider crucial for an understanding of models and modelling,
such as: the perspectival and conceptual character of models, their mediating,
interpretive and predictive function, and the nature and potentialities of theoretical–
mathematical models. The models used to exemplify these aspects are some particle
models of matter, Newton’s two-body planetary model, and models of mechanical
oscillations. The units are designed as a NOS education series for teachers and
upper high school students, but they could also be used independently. The
underlying concept for designing the units is based on teaching scientific method-
ology explicitly and contextualized in curricular science content.

Keywords Scientific models and modeling
Exemplifications of NOS ideas about

models
Teaching contextualized scientific methodology
NOS material

Philosophy of science
Science education

Introduction

‘Nature of Science’ (NOS) describes a broad approach to science that includes the
nature of scientific knowledge and methods, as well as the social and ethical
dimension of science both in its internal traditions and in its interactions with

& Maria Develaki

develaki@[Link]
1
Educational Advice for Secondary Science Education, Hellenic Ministry of Education,
Thessalonı́ki, Greece

123
 M. Develaki

society (e.g. McComas et al. 1998; Clough and Olson 2008; Zeidler and Sadler
2008; Lederman et al. 2014). The importance of understanding the nature of science
and how it contributes to advancing specific science teaching and broader social-
cultural goals is internationally recognized, as is evident from the newer science
curricula and the rich literature on the subject (e.g. Hodson 1992; Zeidler et al.
2005; Ford 2008). In science education there is indeed a significant body of research
on shaping a successful conception of the NOS, and on how to teach it (e.g. Abd-El-
Khalick et al. 1998; McComas 1998; Clough 2006; Clough and Olson 2008; Ryder
and Leach 2008; Taber 2008). The NOS conceptions and pursuits in the literature,
however, are not sufficiently reflected in the reality of science teaching, where
limited or over-simplified conceptions of science that disregard the importance of,
e.g., modeling and argumentation for scientific research and reasoning, or the
cultural-material environments and the social dimensions of science, often still
prevail (Grandy and Duschl 2007).
Models and modeling are core elements of scientific methods and consequently
also have a central place in the conception and teaching of scientific methodology,
and NOS more generally (Giere 1999; Grandy 1992; Adúriz-Bravo and Izquierdo-
Aymerich 2005). Models and modelling are not simple themes, however, either in
the philosophy of science or in science education (e.g. Justi and Gilbert 2003; Justi
and van Driel 2005). Taking into account the complexity of the theme and the
related deficiencies in curricula and teachers’ education, we believe that providing
instructional material about models and modeling may decisively improve and
support classroom NOS instruction and the educational goals it promotes (e.g.
familiarizing students with scientific ways of thinking and promoting meaningful
science learning and scientific literacy (see e.g. NRC 1996; Bybee 1997; Zeidler
et al. 2005).
In this context we present three units designed for teaching scientific
methodology contextualized in scientific content, and more specifically for teaching
basic elements of the nature of scientific models and modeling contextualized in
science curricular content. In designing the units we first determined the aspects of
models and related epistemological views we considered essential for an adequate
depiction of the nature and functions of models, and then selected appropriate
models from the usual science curricular content (mainly physics) to exemplify
those views and aspects point by point. These key aspects concern (a) the
perspectival and conceptual character of models, (b) the mediating, interpretive and
predictive function of models and (c) the particular characteristics and potentialities
of the theoretical-mathematical models. The models selected to exemplify these
aspects are some of the particle models of matter (‘‘Unit 1: Aspects of Models
Exemplified by Particle Models of Matter’’ section), Newton’s two-body planet
model (‘‘Unit 2: Aspects of Models Exemplified by the Newtonian Two-Body
Planetary Model’’ section), and models of mechanical oscillations (‘‘Unit 3: Aspects
of Models Exemplified by Models of Mechanical Oscillations’’ section). The units
are designed as a NOS education series for future science teachers and students in
upper high school classes and lower college levels, but they could also be used
independently, as epistemological interventions during the usual teaching of the

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

models that they include. As a set, the units cover all the above-mentioned points,
while each unit focuses on more specific issues.
‘‘General Description of the Units: Content, Objectives and Teaching Approach’’
section includes a general description of the units (contents, objectives, teaching
approach), while the presentation of each unit is given separately in ‘‘Unit 1:
Aspects of Models Exemplified by Particle Models of Matter’’, ‘‘Unit 2: Aspects of
Models Exemplified by the Newtonian Two-Body Planetary Model’’ and ‘‘Unit 3:
Aspects of Models Exemplified by Models of Mechanical Oscillations’’ sections.
The presentation of each Unit includes the scientific content of the units, its
epistemological context and the related NOS ideas, teaching remarks, and sample
questions for the students and for classroom discussion. In the next section, we
make first a reference to the model-based view of the philosophy of science, on
which the epistemological ideas of the units are based.
It is important to clarify here that this article deals specifically with models and
modeling, a fundamental element of scientific knowledge and methods; it does not
address in its entirety the broader subject of scientific methodology and NOS more
generally, which also concerns the multiple other elements and factors that enter
into and influence the processes of the conception, validation and communication of
scientific knowledge (e.g. creativity-scientific intuition, the interaction of theorizing
and experimenting, the kinds of scientific argument and dialogue, or the social
contexts in which these processes take place). These points are addressed here, but
only insofar as they support and contribute to aims of the article, that is, to an
understanding of the nature of models and modeling.

The Model-Based View in the Philosophy of Science

The most important and accepted view of the nature of scientific methods and
knowledge in the philosophy of science today is the model-based view (in its
original version named semantic wiew),1 which reveals the central role of models in
scientific research by recognising models as the basic research tools and as
mediators for the application of the theories to the real world. In the following, we
make a reconstruction of some basic model-based accounts that significantly
contributed to the clarification of the nature and functions of scientific models and
modelling (e.g. Suppes 1962; Suppe 1977; van Fraasen 1980; Cartwright 1983;
Giere 1988, 1999, 2010).

1
The model-based view followed the statement view predominating at the beginning of the 20th century,
which sees scientific theories as sets of theoretical statements (axioms and principles) and of their
empirical interpretation (correspondence rules) (see e.g. Losee 1990), and understands the axioms as
immediate descriptions and as universal laws of the real world (see Giere 1999). The statement view was
developed mainly by the Logical Empiricists, who pursued the axiomatic reconstruction of theories which
would permit their logical, i.e. their hypothetic-deductive testing (see e.g. Popper 1959); theories could
thus not only be checked empirically but also logically. Logical Empiricism claimed that the justification
of scientific knowledge is (and should be) based solely on empirical and logical criteria (Suppe 1977;
Giere 1999). In the middle of the twentieth century, historically and sociologically oriented analyses
strictly criticized the conceptions of the statement view as simplified and not reflecting real scientific
practice (e.g. Duhem 1978; Kuhn 1974, 1996).

123
 M. Develaki

Models are perspectival, idealized and conceptual representations of real objects,

systems and processes: Modeling of real systems is based on abstraction and
idealization of their properties and interactions, and on conceptions and ideas about
these systems and phenomena (e.g. mechanistic-deterministic or quantenmechanical
ones). Models are therefore imaginary entities, for example, suns with point masses,
homogenous fields, systems with only gravitational interactions, etc., while more
than one model for the same phenomenon can coexist (e.g. models presupposing
quantification or continuity for energy exchange); models succeed nonetheless at
least sometimes in representing the real systems, with regard of course to certain
aspects only and to a certain degree of accuracy, and in revealing hidden
characteristics and relations of the phenomena that often are unperceived by direct
sensory experience.
Models introduce the necessary simplifications required for the study of and
application of theories to the complex reality, and thus mediate their application in
the empirical world. The theories can in principle be applied (accurately) to the
models, the simplified versions of the real systems, while the real systems are too
complex and the theories too general and abstract for immediate application to them
(see e.g. Giere 1999).
Models are intended to describe, interpret and predict phenomena in a way that
makes the theories/the theoretical knowledge compatible with the empirical data.
This implies a continuous process of interaction between empirical testing and
theorizing, where the result of the comparison of the models’ predictions with the
empirical data about the modeled systems is of deciding importance for the
acceptance, or improvement, or rejection of models (see e.g. Nola 2004).
Models are made public to others (for interaction, criticism and the transmission
of knowledge and ideas) in a variety of forms, including material models (scale
models), visual models (pictures, drawings, diagrams), and more abstract models
like the theoretical- mathematical models or the computer simulations. The
development of theoretical models is guided by the fundamental theories that are
relevant for the modelled systems, e.g. classical mechanics, quantum theory, or the
theory of evolution (models are thus mathematical if the root theory is
mathematicalized), and they are intended to specialize the general and abstract
structure of the theories for more specific categories of real systems. More
concretely, the theoretical-mathematical models fulfil the basic equations and
principles of the theory (e.g., for Newtonian mechanics, the fundamental equation
F = ma) plus certain additional specific functions (for Newtonian mechanics, force
functions) that specialise and adapt the theories for application to specific real-world
situations and phenomena (see Grandy 1992; Hestenes 1992; Giere 1999; Winsberg
2010). This means that theories (their axioms and principles) can be accurately
applied to, and are absolutely valid for, their models, but less so for real systems,
because also theoretical models are abstract and require further adaptations to and
correlations with the specific real systems if they are to function and be applicable in
practice (see also ‘‘Unit 3: Aspects of Models Exemplified by Models of Mechanical
Oscillations’’ section).
In this frame, the theoretical models might be understood as small, specialized
theories (Stöckler 1995), such as for instance the theory for uniformly accelerated

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

motion or the theory for ideal gases in the frame of classical mechanics, while
general theories can be considered as hyper-models or principled models (Giere
2010). According to Giere (1988, 1999), general theories are essentially sets of
models. Each set of models represents and deals with only one class of phenomena
(e.g. oscillations), while the theory incudes in a unifying way various areas of
phenomena within its interpretative scope (e.g. linear motions, curvilinear motions
and oscillations in Newtonian mechanics).
The above-described relation of models and theories provides a powerful
conception of scientific modelling, especially when well-established theories for the
systems/phenomena to be modeled and investigated already exist. This is not,
though, always the case in scientific research, and there are also other accounts that
criticize, complement and extend the semantic view, emphasizing a relative
independence (semi-autonomy) of models from theory, as regards both their way of
construction and their research and informative function (e.g. Morrison and Morgan
1999a; Morrison 1999; Cartwright 1999). (‘‘Unit 2: Aspects of Models Exemplified
by the Newtonian Two-Body Planetary Model’’ section concerns some points of
these approaches, the mediating role of models and their contribution to the
development of theoretical knowledge).
The theoretical-mathematical models are the most basic and useful models in
scientific research, because they are essential for addressing complex problems, and
because the further specialisation and elaboration of their (mathematical) structure
facilitates the generating of improved/more ‘realistic’ models, or of new models for
representing more cases of the phenomenon. The theoretical-mathematical models
also give more exact, quantitative predictions that permit safer experimental
validation tests and new technological applications. (‘‘Unit 3: Aspects of Models
Exemplified by Models of Mechanical Oscillations’’ section deals with and
exemplifies these issues relating to the theoretical-mathematical models using the
case of oscillation models).

Model-Based Teaching and Learning

The model-based view had a major impact on science education not only in relation
to perceptions and conceptions concerning scientific methods, but more generally as
regards aims and teaching approaches, and the designing of curricula. Model-based
teaching and learning, teaching and learning with and about models, is an
established approach developed in this context, and a considerable body of literature
has been published, arguing the potential of a model-oriented foundation of science
education for the achievement of contemporary aims, and noting the conditions for
the success of model-based teaching, such as the correct conceptualization of the
models and modeling and the necessary revisions to the curricula, the teachers’
education and the textbooks (e.g. Clement 2000; Gilbert and Boulter 2000; Justi and
Gilbert 2003; Adúriz-Bravo and Izquierdo-Aymerich 2005; Matthews 2007;
Adúriz-Bravo 2013).
These arguments are reinforced by contemporary research in cognitive psychol-
ogy and the cognitive sciences, which supports that the processes of learning,

123
 M. Develaki

reasoning, and decision-making are essentially carried out through the construction
and manipulating of internal/mental models (Johnson-Laird 1983; Vosniadou 1996).
In this frame, many science educational accounts have been developed where the
students’ learning process and conceptual change is considered to be achieved
through the progressive developing of intermediate models directed towards the
creation of the intended (by the instruction) target model, a conception that implies
the involvement of models and modeling in instruction as most suitable for
facilitating this, not easy for the students, cognitive outcome (Clement 2000; Greca
and Moreira 2000; Buckley et al. 2010).
Research on model-based teaching suggests that students’ involvement in
modeling activities can enhance their content and metamodeling knowledge
(Schwarz and White 2005; Gobert et al. 2011; Oh and Oh 2011), their inquiry and
reasoning abilities (e.g. Windschitl et al. 2008; Nersessian 2008; Böttcher and
Meisert 2011), and proposes and describes manners of model-based inquiry
teaching and learning (e.g. Halloun 2004, 2007; Clement and Ramirez 2008; Oh and
Oh 2011). There are also studies on and tools for assessing perceptions of the nature
and function of models held by students (e.g. Treagust et al. 2002; Gobert et al.
2011) and teachers, and research into modes and strategies for educating teachers on
the subjects of models and modeling (e.g. van Driel and Verloop 1999; Justi and
Gilbert 2003; Justi and van Driel 2005; Schwarz 2008; Adúriz-Bravo 2015), and of
the NOS more generally (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000; Lederman 2007).
Particular attention is paid to the possibilities of model-based inquiry for
supporting a more advanced mode of inquiry and reasoning than the scheme usually
followed in science teaching (data-hypothesis-experiment-conclusion), which
reflects an over-simplified view that sees the scientific method as a straightforward,
canon-like process (see Windschitl et al. 2008). New technologies, particularly
simulation-based software, can enhance (and facilitate) model-based inquiry and
reasoning activities in science teaching (Andaloro et al. 1991; van Jooling 2004;
Schwarz and White 2005; Buckley et al. 2010), if they are appropriately designed
and used (i.e. pedagogically oriented) (Wilensky and Resnick 1999; Webb 2005; de
Jong 2006; Jimoyiannis 2010). For example, Buckley et al. (2010) describe the
materials and assessment tools they designed using a model-based software for
Biology in the framework of a research program and the impact of those materials
and tools on students’ science learning, while Gobert et al. (2011) focus on the
impact of this interaction on students’ understanding of the nature of models, noting
the importance of explicit NOS teaching for the improvement of this understanding.
Scientific methodology is a basic element of NOS, since it enters into any further
analysis of the nature of scientific knowledge and the social dimension of science,
while models and modeling are the basic research tools and processes in science,
and consequently are crucial topics for any perception and teaching of scientific
methodology and NOS more generally. The increasingly enhanced curricular aim of
teaching and understanding NOS reflects the acknowledgment of science education
that emphasis should be given not only to students’ content knowledge but also to
their procedural knowledge and the understanding of scientific methods and ways of
thinking. (Hodson 1992; NRC 1996; Bybee 1997; Lederman 2007).

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

The fundamental questions regarding the effectiveness of NOS instruction (and

therefore of model-based teaching) that continue to preoccupy science education
concern which elements of NOS should be taught, and using which methods.
Reservations and criticisms are also expressed as to the practical application of NOS
instruction, given the existing content-oriented curricula and the deficiencies in
teachers’ NOS education and NOS materials. (see e.g. in Clough 2006; Taber 2008;
McComas 2008). There has been considerable theoretical and empirical research
into how to address these matters. For example, a significant consensus has been
achieved on some basic NOS ideas considered to be appropriate for portraying
science in science education (see e.g. Osborne et al. 2003; Windschitl et al. 2008;
Lederman 2007), although at the same time it is argued that NOS teaching and
learning must not be dictated by a closed list of NOS tenets (see e.g. in Clough and
Olson 2008; Grandy and Duschl 2007). As regards ways of teaching the NOS, the
research supports that the effectiveness of NOS teaching increases when particular
NOS ideas are explicitly taught and contextualized in scientific content, for example
through the use of historical or contemporary scientific cases and discourses (e.g.
Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Irwin 2000; McComas 2008).
In view of the complexity of the nature of science, and taking into account
teachers’ limited NOS knowledge and NOS teaching experience and the demands of
today’s content-oriented curricula, great importance is attached to supplying
teachers with instructional NOS packages, which, however, should be informed by
sound philosophical and historical analyses and come from experts in this field
(McComas 2008; Taber 2008) The units presented below aim at meeting two basic
educational research recommendations for effective NOS teaching and learning: the
design of appropriate NOS material, and its explicit and contextualized teaching.
More specifically, the aspects of the nature of models and modeling that are dealt
with in the units are formulated as NOS statements (key-ideas) and accompanied by
a corresponding epistemological background and explanations, and can thus
facilitate explicit instruction. They are, moreover, contextualized within actual
curricular content, and can thus also promote cognitive goals.

General Description of the Units: Content, Objectives and Teaching

Approach

Contents and Objectives

In the following units, basic aspects of scientific modeling are exemplified through
examples of curricular models, and specifically some particle models of matter (in
Unit 1), Newton’s two-body planet model (in Unit 2), and some models for
oscillations (in Unit 3). All these models can exemplify the aforementioned basic
characteristics of scientific models, (i.e. their perspectival character, their context-
dependent construction and use, and their mediating, interpretive and prognostic
functions), while each of them is especially appropriate for exemplifying more
specific issues, which also are related to identified teaching and learning difficulties.
Unit 1 focuses on and exemplifies the perspectival and conceptual character of

123
 M. Develaki

models and the consequent co-existence and use of more than one model for the
same phenomenon, which facilitate an understanding of both the distinction and the
relation between models and real systems. Unit 2 focuses on and exemplifies the
mediating role of models and their contribution to the shaping of theoretical
conceptions, which, together with their interpretive and predictive potentialities,
demonstrate the necessity and the importance of modelling in scientific research.
Unit 3 focuses on and exemplifies the particular features and potentialities of the
theoretical-mathematical models as regards the improvement of these models or the
construction of new models, and the generation of quantitative predictions. In all the
units, the models are associated with their interpretations of the modelled
phenomena, and especially with their predictions, which form the basis for testing
the models (comparison of their predictions with empirical data) and for further
research and technological applications.
The units are designed as a series for NOS education of prospective science teachers,
and also for upper high school students (grades 10–12), since in-service teachers might
teach them relatively independently from their prior NOS education with the help of
the explicitly formulated NOS ideas and the related epistemological background and
explanations included in each unit. As a set, the units give a fuller and more coherent
picture of models and modeling, but they may also be used independently for
epistemological interventions during (or after) the teaching of the exemplifying models
included in the units. The unit with the particle models may also be taught in the lower
classes of high school (grades 8–9) in order to teach from the very beginning some
characteristics of models and how they differ from the real systems). If the units are
used as a single series for NOS instruction in high school, this preferably should come
after the students have received some basic instruction in the science part of the units
(gravity, oscillations and particle models, from which the latter in any case are taught in
the lower classes of high school in connection with heat, electricity and nuclear
phenomena), since the teaching of the series should be addressed as a treatment of the
models taught, approached from the epistemological perspective.
The description of each unit includes the scientific and epistemological content
and the related NOS ideas-objectives of the unit, which provide a rudimentary
epistemological background for the instructor, teaching remarks, and sample
questions for the students and for classroom discussion. The questions are intended
to help orient and focus the discussions and reflections, and the drawing of
conclusions on the essential points of the targeted NOS ideas.

Teaching of the Units

The units are in conceptual form and can be modified and adapted to the level and
conditions of a specific class. A simple way for their teaching may include
introducing the issues and encouraging students to express their own views (or
simply to stimulate their reflection), alternating questions for the students and
teacher’s presentations, discussing and improving students’ answers, and drawing
conclusions.
Although the units also support deeper exploration of their scientific content,
their primary aim is the teaching and understanding of the epistemological aspects

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

of models and modeling, and consequently the focus of their teaching should be
more on their epistemological content, than on their disciplinary content. This
means that the instructor’s presentations and interventions should focus on the
epistemological treatment of the models in each unit and direct students’ attention
and reflections to the target epistemological points/NOS ideas that these models
exemplify and support.
The teacher’s presentations (e.g. using PowerPoint), clarifications and questions
are important for explicit NOS teaching, for guiding and coordinating the students’
work, and for drawing and formulating acceptable conclusions. With his presen-
tations the instructor describes/presents the models in the specific unit, leads an
interactive class discussion about their epistemological perspective (nature and
function of models), and uses them to exemplify and support the epistemological
aspects expressed by the NOS ideas of that unit. He also presents other examples of
models, with the necessary clarifications, so as to extend these NOS ideas to models
in general.
After this interactive presentation, the students take the questions for final
elaboration and preparation of written answers, either singly or in groups. The
students’ answers will help in the formative assessment of progress in the NOS
learning goals of the lesson, while some questions will require further work on the
students’ part, and can be completed individually or in groups, at school or at home,
and be used in their final assessment (see also the teaching remarks given in each
Unit).

Unit 1: Aspects of Models Exemplified by Particle Models of Matter

In this unit, we focus on and exemplify the perspectival and conceptual character of
models and the consequent co-existence and use of more than one model for the
same phenomenon, which facilitates an understanding of both the distinction and
the relation between models and real systems.
The various particle models used in science teaching for representing the
structure of matter and interpreting its behavior in simple phenomena are
appropriate for an exemplification of the following aspects of scientific modeling.

NOS Ideas of the Unit

1. Models may represent objects, systems and processes of the real world with
regard to certain aspects only. They focus on those aspects that are essential for
a particular study of the modelled systems, ignoring others.
2. Models are imaginary entities, embodying our theoretical conceptions and ideas
about the world.
3. Models are necessary for studying the real world, especially phenomena that are
not accessible through direct sensory experience.
4. Modelling is guided by the specific requirements of a study (target research
object, accuracy) and the theoretical context in which this study is made. This

123
 M. Develaki

implies that there can be more than one model for the same phenomenon,
reflecting different theoretical conceptions and different degrees of idealization.
5. The choice of one or another model depends on how well it covers the subject
and meets the accuracy requirements of a particular study; the simplest model
that meets those requirements is preferred among other possibilities.
6. Models are created to represent, interpret and predict phenomena.
7. The acceptance, improvement or rejection of models and theories and the
choice between alternative models is based on empirical evidence: that is, it
depends on how well the models can predict and interpret the empirical data for
the intended system.

Scientific and Epistemological Content

The above NOS ideas can be exemplified by the various more or less idealized
models for molecules and atoms that are used in science teaching depending each
time on the teaching topic, e.g. space-filling models, models including, or not
including, electrons, or nuclear particles, or the bonds between atoms, etc.
These various particle models are used beginning in the first years of high school
for teaching natural science topics relating e.g. to thermal, electrical, nuclear or
chemical phenomena. For the interpretation of the three states of matter and simple
thermal phenomena (melting, boiling, evaporation) in physics teaching, the highly
idealized space filling model of molecules (i.e. molecules as compact globules) is
considered sufficient for the purpose and advantageous for reasons of simplicity,
while in chemistry—and depending on the specific topic—more differentiated
models for the molecules and their chemical reactions are also used, such as the
ball-and-stick model, models with chemical bonds, chemical symbols and formulas,
etc. In teaching electric current, models presenting metal atoms as combinations of
free electrons and ions are used, where for the ions (represented as positive
globules) the nucleus is usually neglected as unimportant, in contrast to models used
for nuclear phenomena where it is the electrons of the atom that are disregarded. For
the interpretation of radiation the planetary model (orbital model) of the atom, or, in
the upper high school classes, the more abstract model of atomic energy levels is
used. In teaching other topics also multiple, and even contradictory, models for the
same thing are used, for example, the models used in teaching optics include, for
light, the model of optical rays (geometrical optics), the wave model and a particle
model (photons), depending on the phenomenon to be interpreted (reflection,
refraction, interference, photoelectric effect). This variety of models for the same
thing can create learning difficulties and confusion in students (see e.g. Mikelskis-
Seifert and Leisner-Bodenthin 2007; Taber 2008), when the models are introduced
only as scientific content, without instruction as to their nature and functions.
In this Unit precisely this variety of models for the same thing and a comparisons of
them is used to exemplify and promote an understanding of the perspectival and
conceptual character of models that implies their distinction from the real things, but
also to show how models are related to the real systems and operate in studying them:
i.e., that models represent real systems with regard to certain aspects only and to a

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

certain degree of accuracy, and that models are based on certain theoretical conceptions/
approaches and ideas about the world. There are thus alternative, complementary or
contradicting models for the same system or process that manifest different degrees of
idealization, or different underlying conceptions of the things. For example, the particle
models of matter are based on a particle conception of matter, while the quantum
mechanical models of matter reflect more a wave conception of matter.
The validity of the models, their ability to represent and interpret phenomena, is
tested in comparison with the empirical/experimental data that exist for the
phenomena, while choosing between alternative models depends on how far a
model meets the special aims of a specific study (aspect of the phenomenon being
investigated and degree of precision required), since not all models have the same
interpretive and predictive capacity.
The points commented upon are shown schematically in Fig. 1.

Objectives and Teaching Guidance and Remarks

The example of the multiple particle models for matter is suitable, as aforemen-
tioned, for illustrating the perspectival, hypothetical and conceptual character of
models, and for clarifying the related question of the co-existence and use of more
than one model for the same phenomenon.
More concretely, the objectives of this unit are to help the learners understand:
(1) That modeling presupposes abstractions and idealizations that depend on the
aims of a particular investigation (aspect of the phenomenon being investigated,
required degree of accuracy) and the theoretical frame in which this study is made
(e.g. in the context of Newtonian mechanics, velocity or mass and interactions are

Fig. 1 Conceptual and perspectival character of models. Distinction and relation between models and
real world

123
 M. Develaki

basic, the chemical bonds of the molecules are not), and that models embody
different conceptions and ideas about the real world (e.g. particle models reflect a
particle conception of matter and ideas about how these matter particles are
structured and interact). The key points here are that the models represent only
certain aspects and characteristics of the real systems, that multiple models exist or
can be constructed for the same system, and that consequently the models are not
the same as the real systems. The opposite result must also be avoided, namely that
the students consider the simplified approach of a specific model which they learned
in class or through a software package as the whole truth about and the only possible
approach to the phenomenon, and the limited conclusions drawn from this specific
simplified approach as the only possible developments and solutions for the real
phenomena and situations (e.g. regarding world theories, the curing of diseases, the
role of heredity, etc.). (2) That researchers choose between the models available
according to the specific aims of a study, and that models are improved or changed
in order to sufficiently represent, predict and explain the existing or new empirical
data for the target phenomenon. For example, Bohr’s planetary model could predict
and explain the radiation only of the simplest hydrogen atoms, and a series of
improved planetary models were developed later to explain the radiation of more
complex elements, while a full description of atomic phenomena was achieved later
still with quantum mechanics. And (3) that models are particularly necessary for
studying phenomena inaccessible to sensory experience.
Particle models are a case for modeling of microscopic phenomena, and are thus
particularly appropriate to demonstrate the importance of modeling for presenting
and developing ideas in science, and especially for phenomena that go beyond
sensory experience. This hypothetical (testing of ideas) and conceptual dimension of
scientific models is usually absent from middle- and high-school students’
perceptions; students, especially the younger ones, often identify scientific models
with the real systems, i.e. they understand models predominantly as replicas of
reality (see Mikelskis-Seifert and Leisner-Bodenthin 2007; AAAS 2013a).
Models are one of the cross-cutting concepts included in the Next Generation
Science Standards for K-12 Science Education (NGSS Lead States 2013), and the
case of particle models in this Unit is particularly suitable for the exemplification
and utilization of this property of models. Particle models are used in all the natural
disciplines, and thus may be utilized for linking the knowledge of the different
natural sciences that students are taught in different courses and classes.
Students can be introduced to scientific models via the presentation of the
multiple models used for teaching the same topic in school (or scientific) books and
educational software of the different natural sciences (see Fig. 2).2 The instructor

2
Before the exemplification of NOS ideas using particle models, the instructor could additionally
introduce the class to the process of scientific modeling, based on the analogy of maps and models. The
maps used in everyday situations (e.g. street maps, maps of transport systems, etc.) have been
recommended (e.g. Giere 1999; Stöckler 1995) for an introduction to the theme of scientific modeling,
since they share some basic similarities with scientific models as regards their perspectival representation
of their object and their usefulness e.g. for an initial orientation in and exploration of an unknown
territory. Scientific modeling, however, seeks not only to represent but also to interpret and predict
phenomena, and to test the models empirically.

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

discusses these examples with the class, especially the multiple particle models of
matter, and taking into account the aforementioned students’ ideas about models,
helps them develop more correct and integrated perceptions. This may be done
through e.g. alternating questions for eliciting students’ initial ideas about models
(worksheet), like the questions proposed below, with discussions of students’
answers on the questions, and teacher presentations with examples and clarifica-
tions, e.g. using PowerPoint, based on the unit’s NOS ideas and the epistemological
background given for them. The proposed sample questions lead to related
discussions, which in combination with teacher’s presentations may facilitate the
drawing of conclusions in the spirit of the NOS ideas stated above. The students are,
finally, asked to improve or expand upon their answers to the questions. The
completion of some questions, e.g. Questions 1.b and 2., can be continued in school
or at home and used to assess the lesson and the students. (See also ‘‘General
Description of the Units: Content, Objectives and Teaching Approach’’ section).

Sample Questions for Discussions, Reflection, and Drawing Conclusions

1. Here you see different models (Fig. 2) from textbooks and software used in
science teaching. (a) What aspects of the real system do they focus on, and how
faithfully do they represent these aspects? (b) How would you answer this
question in the case of models representing things that are not accessible
through direct sensory experience (e.g. models for atoms and molecules)?
2. You see more than one model for the same thing. Explain what, in your opinion,
this means for the relation between model and reality?
3. Compare the models for the basic structural elements of matter (atoms,
molecules) that you see. (a) What pieces of information does each model give?
(b) Which of these models should we choose for the study of thermal, electrical,
chemical, or nuclear phenomena?
4. We have interpreted the states of matter (solid, liquid, gaseous) and the melting
and boiling of matter with the help of the simplest particle model that represents

Fig. 2 More or less idealized models used for representing objects/systems of objects and processes (The
illustrations are taken from Greek natural science textbooks and educational software)

123
 M. Develaki

the molecules as compact globules that move and interact. Would there be any
point in this case in using a more detailed particle model, e.g. with electrons and
nucleons, or with chemical bonds? Justify your answer.

The questions concern basic features and properties of models. Question 1

concerns the perspectival and conceptual character of models, and Question 2 the
existence of multiple models for the same system; both target an understanding of
the relation and the distinction between models and real systems. Question 3
concerns the suitability and selection of a model for a specific study, while Question
4 addresses simplicity as a selection criterion. (Question 4 refers to the use of
particle models for interpreting states of matter and thermal phenomena and thus
also permits a reference to the interpretive and predictive function of models).

Unit 2: Aspects of Models Exemplified by the Newtonian Two-Body

Planetary Model

In this unit we focus on and exemplify the mediating role of models and their
contribution to the development of new theoretical knowledge, which together with
their interpretive and predictive functions demonstrate the necessity and the
importance of modelling in scientific research.
The Newtonian two-body planet model is an instance of modeling in the field of
macroscopic phenomena, and it is appropriate for exemplifying the following
aspects of scientific modeling.

NOS Ideas of the Unit

1. Modelling of real systems and processes is based on abstractions and

idealizations of their properties and interactions.
2. Models introduce simplifications, necessary for the application of the general
theories to the particular real systems and phenomena, especially for their
mathematical approach and elaboration.
3. The direct and precise application of general and abstract theories to real
systems is usually not feasible. Models are simplified counterparts of real
systems, to which the theory may therefore be initially applied, while real
systems are too complex for such direct application; models thus mediate the
application of theories in the real world.
4. The construction of models is guided by the basic established theories, but
models also may precede and contribute to the development of new theoretical-
mathematical knowledge and therefore to further predictions.
5. Models are created to represent, interpret and predict phenomena.
6. Empirical evidence is of deciding importance for the acceptance, improvement,
or change of models and theories.

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

Scientific and Epistemological Content

The Newtonian two-body planetary model contributed decisively to the derivation

of the equation for gravitational force and the many predictions of the Newtonian
theory of gravitation and it demonstrates the contribution of models and modeling to
the development and shaping of new theoretical conceptions.
The two-body planetary model is suitable for highlighting the necessity of
modeling, particularly in the mathematical approach to and elaboration of phenom-
ena. The central question for the scientific community in Newton’s day was the origin
of the centripetal force necessary for the elliptical orbits of the planets. Newton’ big
idea was to postulate the existence of a gravitational attraction between the Sun and
planets, like that between the Earth and terrestrial bodies, as the necessary centripetal
force (and moreover to generalize the existence of gravitational force among all the
masses). He wanted then to derive the equation of the gravitational force from the
results that it produces, that is, the motion of the planets, described by Kepler’s laws.
However, the application of the knowledge then available (the fundamental equation
F = ma, the equation for the centripetal force (Fc), Kepler’s laws) to the real
planetary system (all the planets and their gravitational interactions, elliptical orbits,
the deviations of the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn from the elliptical form, etc.) was at
the time a mathematically insoluble problem, which was overcome by the process of
abstraction and idealization: that is by the modeling method. Newton used a two-body
planetary model which simplified the mathematical elaboration of the problem and
enabled the advance of his research concept.
In general, the direct application of a theory (principles and axioms) to real
systems usually becomes uncontrollably difficult, especially from the mathematical
point of view. Models are the idealized counterparts of the real systems, to which
theoretical knowledge can thus be initially applied, thereby mediating the
application of theory to reality (Giere 1999; Morrison and Morgan 1999b). Newton
arrived at the equation for gravitational force only by applying the equation of the
centripetal force, and Kepler’s 3rd law to the idealized two-body planetary model,
that is, the sun with only one planet in a circular orbit, with point masses, and their
gravitational interaction as the only force, etc. Substituting Kepler’s 3rd law (r3/
T2 = C) into the equation of the centripetal force (Fc = mv2/r, where v = 2pr/T),
he arrived at the law of gravitational force: that this centripetal force, i.e. the
gravitational attraction here, is proportional to the masses of the Sun and the planet
(and between the masses in general) and inversely proportional to the square of the
distance between them: Fc = Fg = GmL/r2 (m, v, r and T are the mass, the
velocity, the radius, and the period of the circling planet, M is the mass of the Sun, C
is a constant, and G is the universal gravitational constant).3
The basic equation F = ma of the Newtonian theory, where F is now equal to the
gravitational force, was then again initially applied to the same model, which made
it possible to derive the planetary orbits and many other predictions, while the

3
Fc = mv2/r, v = 2pr/T, r3/T2 = C ? Fc = 4p2Cm/r2. Considering that the attraction will also be
proportional to the mass of the Sun (M), if we multiply and divide by M, and posit 4p2C/
M = G ? Fc = GmL/r2, then we find that Fc = Fg = GmL/r2.

123
 M. Develaki

Fig. 3 Upper part: The mediating role of models. Lower part: Contribution of models in developing new
theoretical concepts

extremely complex mathematical elaboration of a more realistic planetary model

(i.e. with the gravitational interaction of the sun and all the planets) was tackled, to a
certain degree, much later with the advance of mathematical methods and the help
of computers (Fig. 3 shows schematically the points addressed above).

Objectives and Teaching Guidance and Remarks

Contemporary or historical cases of science (like Newton’s two-body planetary

model) are recommended to be used for contextualizing NOS ideas with scientific
content and the scientific enterprise more generally (see e.g. Irwin 2000; McComas
2008; Ryder and Leach 2008).
The case of the Newtonian two-body planetary model can be utilized for the
exemplification and understanding of the NOS ideas mentioned above: (a) that
modeling presupposes abstractions and idealizations to make the (mathematical)
elaboration of the phenomena manageable, with the result that the theories can be
applied precisely to the models, which would have been impossible for highly
complex real systems, and the models can thus mediate between theory and the real
world; and (b) that modeling contributes to the development of theoretical-
mathematical conceptions that lead to further predictions and research (as in the
case of the Newtonian theory of gravitation, the calculation of the escape velocity,
the possibility of man-made satellites, the existence of unknown planets, etc.). It
also can demonstrate the importance of creativity/intuition, and of the development
of mathematical strategies for the advancement of scientific research.
The case of Newton’s theory of gravitation also provides an example for
classroom discussion and reflection on the distinguishing feature of science to test
and to improve or change its models based on the empirical data that exist for the
phenomena. For example, the models of Aristotle’s theory for the fall of the bodies
(bodies move towards their natural position) were replaced by the corresponding
models of Newton’s gravitational theory (bodies fall because of the gravitational
attraction of the Earth), in the context of which a whole series of improved, more

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

realistic models were developed to better represent the empirical data for the
phenomenon (models with and without the friction of the air, with different
equations to express that friction, etc.); while Einstein’s theory of gravitation, which
followed, could explain empirical data, e.g. relating to planetary orbits, that
Newton’s theory of gravitation could not, and could also predict new phenomena
(the curvature of light in the Sun’s gravitational field and gravitational waves).
The teaching of this unit is based to a considerable extent on instructor’s
presentations, in combination with targeted questions for discussions in the class,
such as e.g. the sample questions that follow. In his presentation the instructor
derives the equation for gravitational force based on the thinking described above,
drawing the class’s attention and discussions to the epistemological considerations it
contains, i.e. the role of modeling for the indirect, model-mediated, application of
the theoretical knowledge to the complex real systems, and their contribution to the
shaping of new theoretical knowledge and to the derivation, therefore, of new
predictions. Teachers’ presentations should focus less on the scientific content of the
unit per se and more on the epistemological context of that content. The questions
help focus the discussions on the epistemological issues of the unit summarized in
the corresponding NOS ideas. The students are, finally, asked to improve or expand
upon their answers. The completion of some questions, e.g. Questions 3 and 4, can
be continued in school or at home and used to assess the lesson and the students.

Sample Questions for Discussion, Reflection, and Drawing Conclusions

1. With what abstractions and idealizations did Newton construct his gravitational
two-body model (a), and what could he achieve in that way (b)?
2. The Newtonian two-body planetary model contributed decisively to the
derivation of the many predictions of the Newtonian theory of gravitation
(possible orbits of planets and satellites, escape velocity etc.) Scientists assign
superiority to theories that are very predictive. Why, do you think, are
predictions so important in science?
3. It has been said that science describes how the world would work if it were not
what it is. Think about how might this statement be interpreted on the basis of
the modeling processes used to acquire scientific knowledge?
4. The acceptance, improvement, or rejection of models, or the choice between
alternative models depends on how well a theory can predict and interpret the
empirical data for the phenomena. Scientists use empirical data to test their
models and to support, modify or refute them.
Prepare a short research project on the subject of improving or changing models
and theories based on the example of the models of falling bodies or models of
other topics in the natural or other sciences.

The questions, accompanied with related discussions and teachers’ presentations,

intend the drawing of conclusions in the sprit of the NOS ideas of the unit. Question
1 concerns the idealization process of modeling (1.a) and the mediating role of
models and their contribution to the developing of theoretical knowledge (1.b).
Question 2 concerns the importance of predictions for scientific research, since they

123
 M. Develaki

enable empirical tests of hypotheses/theories and further research and discoveries.

Question 3 is a more general question concerning the idealized nature of scientific
knowledge and consequently its limited accuracy for the real world, due to the
inherent in scientific research idealizing process of modeling. (What scientific
propositions essentially declare is what some behaviors of the natural world might
(exactly) be if certain idealized conditions were fulfilled (i.e. conditions where
interactions (e.g. frictions), properties and processes of the real systems, etc. are to a
greater or lesser degree ignored or idealized).

Unit 3: Aspects of Models Exemplified by Models of Mechanical

Oscillations

In Unit 3 we focus on and exemplify the specific character and potential of the
theoretical-mathematical models, which are used to show how models can be
improved and new ones created, and to point out the usefulness especially of the
quantitative predictions.
Models of mechanical oscillations are used here for an illustration of the
following features and possibilities of the theoretical-mathematical models.

NOS Ideas of the Unit

1. There are several types of models, material/scale models, visual models, or the
more abstract theoretical-mathematical models. The construction of theoretical-
mathematical models is guided by the fundamental theories relevant for the
study of the corresponding modelled real systems and phenomena.
2. The theoretical-mathematical models are essentially abstract structures that
fulfil the principles and axioms of the theory and some additional specific
functions that specialise the general theory for application to a specific class of
phenomena. Theories are thus absolutely valid for their models, but less so for
the real systems.
3. The theoretical-mathematical models are very important: further specialization
and elaboration of their mathematical structure gives better models for
representing the phenomenon more faithfully or new models for representing
more cases of the phenomenon; they also give more exact quantitative
predictions, which make possible safer empirical-experimental tests of models
and hypotheses and technological applications.
4. Scientific theories include sets of theoretical models that represent and deal with
the classes of phenomena that fall within the interpretative scope of those
theories. A theoretical model deals with one phenomenon or class of
phenomena, while a general theory interprets and unifies several areas of
phenomena within its scope.

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

Scientific and Epistemological Content

Models of mechanical oscillations are some of the fundamental theoretical-

mathematical models of classical mechanics that are included in the curriculum for
the upper classes of high school (and college levels).
The construction of theoretical models for a class of phenomena (e.g. for
oscillations, or for changes in the characteristics of populations, or for climate-
related changes) is guided by the principles and axioms of the existing fundamental
theories for those phenomena (classical mechanics or the theory of evolution or
hydrodynamics, respectively); theoretical models have thus a mathematical
structure if the root theory is mathematicalized, e.g. the theoretical models of
physics or meteorology.
In the statement view, the original version of the model-based view, that based its
analyses mainly on the case of physics, the theoretical models are defined as
structures, which fulfill the principles and axioms of a general theory (e.g. the
fundamental equation F = ma in the case of Newtonian mechanics) plus certain
additional specific functions, (e.g. force functions for the models of Newtonian
mechanics) that are defined according to the class of phenomena that the model
aims to represent and the idealizing assumptions (e.g. point masses, lack of friction
or other interactions, etc.) made for these phenomena/systems. (For example, the
core of the model of harmonic oscillation (the harmonic oscillator) is essentially the
fundamental equation F = ma and the force function F = -Dx.) With these
specific functions the theoretical models specialise the general theory for application
to a specific class of phenomena: e.g. classical mechanics, which concerns all kinds
of motion, is specialised by, e.g., the force function F = -Dx to the case of
oscillation, or by F = const. or F = k/r2 to the rectilinear or curvilinear motions,
respectively (r is the radius of the circling body). Theories (their principles and basic
equations/axioms) are thus absolutely valid for their theoretical models but not with
the same accuracy for the corresponding real systems, because also theoretical
models are still abstract and require further correlations with some characteristics
(variables and parameters) of the real systems (e.g. correspondence of the symbol x
with the position of the oscillating system or of D with the elasticity of a spring) and
additional auxiliary hypotheses, definition of initial conditions, etc. in order to be
functional for the study and manipulation of a specific real system or problem.
Scientists seek to improve their models, or to create more models for representing
more cases of the phenomena. To this purpose, they specialize, as aforementioned,
the (mathematical) structure of the theoretical models, thus creating a series of
models, such as the set of the theoretical-mathematical models for the oscillations.
More concretely, the further specialization of the force function F = -Dx of the
harmonic oscillator, e.g. by taking into account friction forces, driving forces, etc.,
gives a set of oscillation models: for damped oscillation, for forced oscillation, etc.
(see Giere 1988, 1999). In this example, the basic theoretical model of the harmonic
oscillator (essentially the equations F = ma and F = -Dx) is a very idealized
model with only one linear force (F = -Dx); by contrast, the less idealized/more
realistic model of damped oscillation (which takes friction into account) includes
one additional damping force (friction) (the equations for this model are now

123
 M. Develaki

F = ma and F(x,v) = -Dx-F1(v)), the model of forced oscillation one additional

driving force (the equations are now F = ma and F(x,t) = -Dx ? F2(t)), the model
for damped and forced oscillation forces of both types (the equations are now,
F = ma and F(x,v,t) = -Dx-F1(v) ? F2(t)), and so on.
These equations are used to calculate the position and velocity of the oscillator as
a function of time, the oscillation period, etc. The equations are not absolutely valid
for natural oscillating bodies, such as the ones in wall clocks, but apply e.g. to
idealized pendula (with point mass, massless cable, no friction, existing in a uniform
gravitational field, etc.), and in order to use the model to study a natural pendulum,
the period of the natural pendulum being measured by the experiment would, for the
precision required by a specific study, have to be sufficiently close to the period
calculated by the model equations. The above conceptions are schematically shown
in Table 1.
It follows from the above that the theoretical-mathematical models are very
important for scientific research, among other things because further specializing

Table 1 Relations between theories, models, and real objects

Basic theory + Specific functions → Theoretical model ↔ Intended

Fundamental Depending on the Specific theory about a phenomena
equations and intended phenomena and particular class of
principles of the the idealising assumptions phenomena
theory made for them

e.g. in Newtonian mechanics:

F = ma and:
F = const. → Theoretical model ↔ e.g. falling objects,
Intended systems: physical for rectilinear accelerated systems
objects in linear motion motion (constant
Idealizations: point masses, acceleration)
homogeneous gravitational
field
F = b/r2 → Theoretical model ↔ e.g. system Earth-
Intended systems: physical for uniform circular Sun, or Earth-Moon
objects in orbital motion (or elliptical) motion etc.
Idealizations: e.g. 2 point
masses, with only their
mutual gravitational
interaction
F = -Dx → Theoretical model ↔ e.g. physical
Intended systems: oscillating for harmonic pendulums and
physical objects oscillation springs, vibrating
Idealizations: point masses, (Harmonic oscillator) membranes, bars
no friction etc.

↓
Set of models of the
harmonic oscillator
↓
Damped oscillator Forced oscillation
F(x,v)=-kx-F1(v) F(x,t)=-kx+F2(t)

Damped and forced oscillation

F(x,v,t) = -kx –F1(v) +F2(t)
… and so on

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

and elaborating their mathematical structure (a) improves them, making them more
faithful representations (e.g. the models for the damped oscillations that take friction
into account), or creates new models to represent additional variants of the
phenomenon (e.g. the models for the driven oscillations), and (b) leads to more
exact, quantitative predictions, i.e. more accurately testable predictions.

NOS Objectives and Guidance and Teaching Remarks

Models of oscillations are a good example for helping the learners understand some
basic features and functions of the theoretical-mathematical models and for
comparing them with other kinds of models. Concretely, as described above: (a) that
theoretical models essentially are structures (mathematicalized or not) including the
principles and axioms/equations of the fundamental theories (theories are thus
absolutely valid for their models but less so for the modeled real systems) and some
additional specific functions (which specialise the general theory for application to a
specific class of phenomena); (b) that they are very important for scientific research,
because the further specialization and elaboration of their (mathematical) structure
facilitates the generation of more realistic models (e.g. the models for the damped
oscillation that takes friction into account) for representing the phenomena more
faithfully, or of new models for representing and studying more cases of the
phenomena (e.g. the models for the driven oscillations, etc.), permitting thus the
broadening of application of theories to the real world; and (c) that they have the
advantage of yielding more accurate, quantitative predictions (if they are
mathematical). While all kinds of models have an inherent predictive potential,
with theoretical models we gain quantitative predictions that facilitate safer
experimental tests of models and hypotheses and technological applications (e.g. the
stability of the oscillation period deduced from the equations of the oscillation
models led to the use of oscillations for the objective measurement of time and the
construction of timepieces).
Using the example of oscillation models for an understanding of modeling
processes and intentions (metamodeling knowledge), means that the reference to the
models of damped and forced oscillation should be accompanied by questions about
and discussion of the pursuit of greater faithfulness in the modeling of the
phenomena, and the strategies scientists develop to this end; e.g. by taking into
account more and more parameters and interactions of the real systems (like
frictions), which however then increases the complexity of the mathematical
structure of the models. (Today, scientists can create ever more realistic models,
using computers to manage their mathematical complexity (e.g. numerical
simulations).
Moreover, as mentioned in ‘‘The Model-Based View in the Philosophy of
Science’’ section and as exemplified above for the case of oscillation models, the
model-based view sees a general theory as sets of related theoretical models (as e.g.
the sets of the various models for linear motions, curvilinear motions and
oscillations in Newtonian mechanics). This conception gives a basis for a meaning-
giving structuring of school science contents, i.e. when curricular topics, which

123
 M. Develaki

often are taught disconnected, are understood and presented as related (theoretical)
models of the same general theory.
Some sample questions designed to orient classroom discussion and the drawing
of conclusions in the spirit of the NOS ideas of the unit are given below. The
instructor encourages the students to express their own ideas about the epistemo-
logical topics of the Unit, and gives supplementary and explanatory presentations
relating to those topics, based on the NOS ideas and the related scientific
background given at the beginning of the Unit, and focuses and coordinates the
students’ discussion and reflections, so that they can draw the desired conclusions.
The students are, finally, asked to improve or expand upon their answers to the
sample questions. The completion of some questions, e.g. Questions 4 and 5, can be
continued in school or at home and used to assess the lesson and the students.

Sample Questions for Discussions, Reflection and Drawing of Conclusions

1. We say that the model of the harmonic oscillation is a very idealized model.
What does this mean?
2. With what objective and assumptions in relation to the very idealized model of
the harmonic oscillation is the model of damped oscillation and of forced
oscillation introduced in your textbook?
3. Following the example of the oscillation models, can you cite and discuss a set
of some, more or less idealized models that you may have been taught in topics
of physics, chemistry, biology, or of other sciences.
4. How do the theoretical-mathematical models of oscillation relate to the
horological measurement of time?
5. Empirical observations and experimental laboratory measurements usually do
not match exactly the theoretically predicted values. What factors could cause
this deviation? (except the measurement errors).

Question 1 concerns the process of idealization in modelling, and Question 2 the

de-idealization of (existing) models for the development of more realistic ones.
Question 3 concerns the sets of more or less idealized models for a particular class
of phenomena, developed in the framework of the basic theory for that class of
phenomena. Question 4 concerns the importance of predictions in scientific
research, especially the usefulness of quantitative-mathematical predictions for safer
tests and for technological applications. Question 5 is more general, and concerns
the fact that the discrepancy between empirical/experimental and theoretical data is
due not only to measurement errors but also to the idealizations of the modelling
process, which enter into all scientific theorization (and experimentation as well).
A comprehensive outline of the Units, including the NOS ideas-objectives of the
Units and their corresponding exemplification through the selected school science
models, is given in Table 2.

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

Table 2 Use of school science models to exemplify key-aspects of scientific modeling

NOS ideas Exemplification of the NOS ideas

Unit 1: Views on models and modeling exemplified by the particle models

Models may represent objects, systems and Particle models were created in science to
processes of the real world with regard to represent a particle structure of matter and to
certain aspects only. They focus on those interpret its behaviour in thermic, electric,
aspects that are essential for a particular study nuclear and other phenomena. To this end, and
of the modelled systems, ignoring others for every instance, various models were
developed that represent the particles of matter
(atoms and molecules), either as compact
globules, or more differentiated, focusing on the
representation of, e.g., the electrons or the
nucleons or the quarks, etc.
Models are imaginary entities, embodying our Particle models are based on a particle conception
theoretical conceptions and ideas about the of matter (i.e. matter consists of discrete
world particles, molecules, atoms, nucleons, etc.), and
on ideas about the composition and structure of
the particles. The classical planetary model for
the atom, for example, is based on the idea that
the electrons are orbiting around the nucleus like
the planets around the sun
Models are necessary for studying the world, Particle models were created for representing not
especially phenomena that are not accessible directly observable aspects of matter (i.e. for
through direct sensory experience representing matter on the atomic or subatomic
level)
Modelling is guided by the specific requirements While all particle models of matter reflect the
of a study (target research object, accuracy) and particle conception of matter, there are various,
the theoretical context in which this study is more or less differentiated/idealized models for
made. This implies that there can be more than atoms and molecules: e.g. the space-filling model
one model for the same phenomenon, reflecting (atoms and molecules as undifferentiated
different theoretical conceptions and different compact globules), models including, or not
degrees of idealization including, electrons, nucleons, chemical bonds,
energy levels, etc., that are used depending on the
phenomenon to be studied and the required
accuracy of the study
The choice of one or another model depends on The simplest space filling particle model
how well it covers the subject and meets the (molecules as compact globules that move and
accuracy requirements of the particular study; interact) is sufficient for interpretations and
the simplest model that meets those predictions in simple thermal phenomena, and
requirements is usually preferred among other advantageous for reasons of simplicity. Since the
possibilities composition of the molecules is of no interest
here, a more differentiated model, such as the
ball-and-stick model or the model with chemical
bonds, is neither necessary nor practical
The acceptance, improvement or rejection of Bohr’s planetary model could explain the
models and theories and the choice between radiation only of the simplest hydrogen atoms,
alternative models is based on empirical and a series of improved planetary models were
evidence: that is, it depends on how well the developed to explain the radiation of more
models can predict and interpret the empirical complex atoms, while a full description of atomic
data for the intended system phenomena was achieved later with quantum
mechanics

123
 M. Develaki

Table 2 continued

NOS ideas Exemplification of the NOS ideas

Models are created to represent, interpret and Particle models of matter are used for representing
predict phenomena the structure of matter (solid, liquid gaseous) and
for interpreting and predicting its behaviour in
various phenomena (thermal, chemical,
electrical, nuclear, radiation, etc.)
Specific issues of the unit:
The perspectival and conceptual character of models, and the consequent existence and use of more than
one model for the same phenomenon
The distinction and relation between models and real systems
The importance and the necessity of models for studying phenomena, especially those that go beyond
sensory experience
Unit 2: Views on models and modeling exemplified by the Newtonian two-body planetary model
Modeling of real systems and processes is based The two-body planetary model is an idealized/
on abstractions and idealizations of their simplified planetary system (i.e. sun with only
properties and interactions one planet in a circular orbit, with point masses,
and their gravitational interaction as the only
force, etc.)
Models introduce simplifications, necessary for The idealized two-body planetary model
the application of the general theories to the facilitated the (mathematical) application of
particular real systems and phenomena, Newtonian mechanics to the case of planetary
especially for their mathematical approach and systems, thus broadening its field of application
elaboration
The direct and precise application of general and Newton postulated a gravitational attraction
abstract theories to real systems is usually not between sun and planets as the necessary
feasible. Models are simplified counterparts of centripetal force for the curvilinear motion of the
real systems, to which the theory may therefore planets, and wanted then to derive its equation.
be initially applied, while real systems are too Application of the knowledge then available
complex for such direct application; models (axioms of Newtonian mechanics, equation for
thus mediate the application of theories in the the centripetal force, Kepler’s laws) to the real
real world planetary system (i.e. with the Sun and all the
planets and all their gravitational interactions,
elliptical orbits etc.) was mathematically
unmanageable at that time. Newton arrived at the
equation for gravitational force (Fg = GmL/r2)
only by applying this knowledge to the idealized
two-body planetary model
The construction of models is guided by the basic The two-body planetary model contributed to the
established theories, but models also may derivation of the equation for gravitational force.
precede and contribute to the development of Application of this equation to the same model
new theoretical-mathematical knowledge and enabled the mathematical derivation of the
therefore to further predictions elliptic planetary orbits and the possible orbits of
man-made satellites, and many other predictions
Empirical evidence is of deciding importance for The model of Aristotle’s theory of falling bodies
the acceptance, improvement, or change of was replaced by the models of Newton’s
models and theories gravitational theory that could better explain the
phenomenon, while Einstein’s theory of
gravitation, which followed, could explain even
more empirical data than Newton’s theory, and
could also predict new phenomena

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

Table 2 continued

NOS ideas Exemplification of the NOS ideas

Specific issues of the unit:

The mediating role of models for the application of theories to the real systems
Contribution of the models to the development of new theoretical conceptions and thus to further
predictions
Unit 3: Views on models and modeling exemplified by models for mechanical oscillations
There are several types of models, material/scale A set of more or less idealized theoretical-
models, visual models, or the more abstract mathematical models was created in the frame of
theoretical-mathematical models. The Newtonian mechanics for the representation and
construction of theoretical-mathematical the mathematical study of mechanical
models is guided by the fundamental theories oscillations
relevant for the study of the corresponding
modelled real systems/phenomena
The theoretical-mathematical models are The theoretical-mathematical models of
essentially abstract structures that fulfil the mechanical oscillations fulfil the fundamental
principles axioms of the theory and some equation F = ma of Newtonian mechanics and a
additional specific functions that specialise the specific force-function, different and
general theory for application to a specific class characteristic for each model. For example, the
of phenomena. Theories are thus absolutely core of the theoretical model of harmonic
valid for their models, but less so for the real oscillation is essentially the basic equation
systems F = ma and the force function F = -Dx. This is
a very idealized model with only one linear force
(F = -Dx), which ignores frictions and other
possible interactions
The theoretical-mathematical models are very (a) The harmonic oscillator is a highly idealized
important: (a) the further specialization and model. It ignores frictions and other possible
elaboration of their mathematical structure interactions. Scientists seek to improve or create
gives better models for representing the new models for representing more cases of the
phenomenon more faithfully or new models for phenomena more faithfully. For example, the
representing more cases of the phenomenon; further specialization of the force function
(b) they also give more exact, quantitative F = -Dx of the harmonic oscillator, i.e. by
predictions, which make possible safer taking into account friction forces, driving forces,
empirical-experimental tests of models and etc., gives a set of models: for damped
hypotheses and technological applications oscillation, for forced oscillation, etc
(b) The stability of the oscillation period, derived
from the equations of the oscillation models,
constituted the basis for an objective
measurement of time, and contributed to the
construction of timepieces
Scientific theories essentially are sets of Apart from the set of oscillation models,
theoretical models that represent and deal with Newtonian mechanics includes more sets of
the classes of phenomena that fall within the models, e.g. the models for rectilinear motion
interpretive scope of those theories. Each set of (force function: F = const.) or curvilinear motion
theoretical models-is deals with one (force function: F = k/r2, where k is a constant
phenomenon or class of phenomena, while a and r is a radial distance
general theory interprets and unifies several
areas of phenomena within its scope
Specific topics of the unit:
Features and potentialities of theoretical-mathematical models (addressing complex phenomena,
facilitating the generation of more realistic models or new models, yielding of quantitative predictions
which enable safer tests and technological applications)

123
 M. Develaki

Summary and Implications

We presented three Units in which school science models are used for exemplifying
basic aspects and issues relating to scientific modeling. In designing the Units we
first determined the aspects of models and related scientific views that we
considered essential for a sufficient picture of models and modelling, and then
selected appropriate models from the usual curricular content to exemplify those
views and aspects point by point. These key-aspects demonstrate the relation and
distinction between models and real systems and the importance of models for the
acquisition of scientific knowledge, and they focus on the following issues: the
perspectival and the conceptual character of models and the consequent co-
existence and use of more than one model for the same phenomenon, exemplified
primarily in Unit 1 through some particle models of matter; the mediating role of
models for the application of theories to the real world and their contribution to
developing new theoretical conceptions, exemplified in Unit 2 by Newton’s two-
body planet model; and some particular characteristics and potentialities of the
theoretical-mathematical models, which are exemplified in Unit 3 by models for
mechanical oscillations.
The more general underlying concept for designing and teaching the Units is
based on the contextualization of NOS elements in usual curricular science content,
which has thus the advantage of promoting the teaching of both, content and NOS,
with emphasis though on the NOS objectives, i.e. the understanding of the nature of
models and modeling.
The Units constitute a NOS education series for prospective teachers and upper
high-school students. As a set, the Units cover and cohere all the above points, but
they may also be used independently for epistemological interventions and
reflections during (or after) the teaching of the models included in the Units. The
description of each Unit is accompanied by commentary on its scientific and
epistemological content, and on its epistemological content comprised in the NOS
ideas of the Unit, plus teaching remarks and questions for students and for
classroom discussions, all of which are of practical assistance to the instructor.
The first two Units were presented to three groups of in-service science teachers
from public secondary schools, who participated in seminars with theme the
teaching of scientific methodology incorporated into curricular content. In the
discussion that followed and on a short questionnaire distributed to them, the
teachers gave positive to very positive feedback as regards the impact of the Units
on their epistemological views, their interest in teaching them having the presented
material available, and the educational value of the Units for integrating scientific
content and methods, but also for the science teaching in general. Mention was also
made of the preconditions for the implementation of the proposals in the classroom
(availability of the presented materials, less curricular content, adaptation of the
Units to the level of the specific classes).4 This investigation was made for purposes
4
The questions in the questionnaire for these Units are: (1) How important do you think that the subject
of models and modeling is (a) for classroom teaching and (b) for the teacher’s general professional
development? (2) How far do the points developed in the teaching proposal: (a) influence your views on
scientific methods, and (b) reinforce classroom teaching of the natural sciences? (3) In your opinion, how

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

of designing further NOS education courses for teachers, but it provides an initial
teachers’ feedback for the impact of the sequence on teachers’ perceptions of NOS
and of science teaching methods. Further research is needed on, for example,
teachers’ strategies for its adaptation to and implementation in classroom
environments and its effectiveness in promoting/developing students’ understanding
of and familiarization with scientific methods and ways of thinking.
Metamodeling knowledge (knowledge about the nature and functions of models)
is useful indeed, whether the models are taught as scientific method or as scientific
content. Beyond promoting NOS objectives per se (teaching and understanding of
scientific methodology), understanding of the nature of models also has benefits for
more general science teaching and learning issues and goals. For example:
Metamodeling knowledge helps clarify the existence and use of alternative (more
or less idealized and possibly contradictory, e.g. for light) models for the same
phenomenon, which can cause learning difficulties in students, since they are not
aware of the hypothetical and the conceptual nature of models (i.e. that models
reflect each time different theoretical approaches and alternative ideas); students,
especially the younger ones, often identify scientific models with the real systems,
i.e. they understand models basically as replicas of reality, or associate the term
model chiefly with scale/material models.
A basic objective of upper high-school science education is the understanding of
the nature and the potential of scientific theories. Understanding and teaching
scientific contents on the basis of the model-based view (see ‘‘The Model-Based
View in the Philosophy of Science’’ and ‘‘Unit 3: Aspects of Models Exemplified by
Models of Mechanical Oscillations’’ sections), i.e. as related (theoretical) models of
a general theory (as e.g. the sets of the various more or less realistic/idealized
models for linear motions, curvilinear motions and oscillations of Newtonian
mechanics) help students understand the structure and the interpreting and unifying
scope of scientific theories. Appplying the above model-based conception in science
education, i.e. teaching and learning scientific contents as (theoretical) models of a
general theory, also gives coherence and meaningful structuring to the curricular

Footnote 4 continued
applicable to classroom teaching is the teaching proposal presented? How far would you be prepared to
implement it, assuming you had the material of the presentation at your disposal?
Some of the teachers’ answers (translated by the author) are:
Regarding Unit 1: ‘It would both help us teach and stimulate the students’ interest. We are willing to
implement these ideas, as long as we have the related material.’—‘It would open new mental horizons for
them. I am willing.’—‘Depending on the number of students it is moderately to very applicable. With the
right material I would be delighted to implement it.’—‘[Applicable] as long as curricular content and
classroom numbers are reduced.’—‘Of course I am prepared to use it in some teaching hours, and if the
students seemed interested I would use it more.’
Regarding Unit 2: ‘I think they are very important and really useful for shaping the children’s way of
thinking.’—‘Very interesting [the proposal] for both the teacher and the students. From my experience I
have observed that if the students are interested in something, that something is from the philosophy of
science. I would like to have a unit on electricity, if possible.’—‘Very worthwhile. We have to start
teaching in a different way.’—‘It made me think about the teaching methods we use. I think they are very
interesting and useful for new teachers.’—‘They changed my thinking about how we present concepts.’—
‘I think it broadens the teacher’s operating framework. It is applicable.’—‘I am interested, but it would
need to be adapted to the level of each classroom.’—‘We need a bank of similar presentations’.

123
 M. Develaki

contents of a faculty, e.g. of physics, or chemistry, or biology, which are often

taught in a disconnected and fragmentary manner. This may be done, for example,
when the models that are used in the upper classes for a more complete and
thorough study of a topic, e.g. motion, or chemical reactions, or genetics, are
introduced and understood as more realistic than, or as alternative models to the
simpler models that are used in the lower classes for the same topic.
Moreover, models are a common theme in science education (AAAS 2013b),
since they run through all the natural sciences (and also other disciplines) and their
teaching. Models can thus support the linking of taught knowledge both, within the
same and across the different natural and other sciences/disciplines and fields (e.g.
technology, history, sociology, etc.). In this sense models constitute one of the
crosscutting concepts which are included in contemporary science educational
conceptions and proposals (e.g. in the NGSS) and are recommended for linking the
knowledge not only of the natural but also of other disciplines that students are
taught in different courses and classes.
Teaching of the nature of science contributes to the promotion of important
educational goals like the contextualized and meaningful science teaching and
learning and the cultivation of scientific literacy, which means, among other things,
the ability to reason and investigate in a scientific way, abilities that the students
will need to cope with the demands and the socio-scientific issues of their age.
Scientific methodology, and consequently scientific modeling, is a basic element of
the NOS. The subject of models and modelling is complex and challenging, but it is
also crucial for the conception and teaching of scientific methodology, since models
lie at the core of scientific research methods, and equally for teaching science
content, since what is taught is largely scientific models. Having didactically
suitable and epistemologically sound instructional NOS material available can
supplement the deficiencies that exist in such material in the science curricula,
schoolbooks and teachers education, and it may decisively improve the NOS
education and make teacher’s work easier and more effective.
In this context, the first objective of the Units presented is to reconstruct the basic
features of models and modelling and the related philosophical views and to
exemplify them by curricular content, so as to adapt and transfer them to NOS
education for future science teachers and upper high school students. The Units also
aim on the one hand to show that understanding modelling concerns both scientific
content and methods, and on the other to provide some concepts and material on how
content and methods may be linked and mutually reinforced in classroom teaching.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (2013a). Project 2061. Benchmarks on-
line (Common themes: B. Models). [Link]
php?chapter=11#B0).

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

AAAS. (2013b). Atlas of science literacy (sample maps from Atlas 2: Common themes models (11B).
[Link]
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The Nature of science and instructional
praxis: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of
science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7),
665–701.
Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2013). A ‘semantic’ view of scientific models for science education. Science &
Education, 17(2–3), 147–177.
Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2015). Teaching the nature of science with scientific narratives. Interchange, 45,
167–184. doi:10.1007/s10780-015-9229-7.
Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. (2005). Utilizing the ‘3P-model’ to characterize the
discipline of didactics of science. Science & Education, 14(1), 29–41.
Andaloro, G., Donzelli, V., & Sperandeo-Mineo, R. M. (1991). Modelling in physics teaching: the role of
computer simulation. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 243–254.
Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework.
Science & Education, 20(2), 103–140.
Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Horwitz, P., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Looking inside the black box:
assessing model-based learning and inquiry in BioLogica TM. International Journal of Learning
Technology, 5(2), 166–190.
Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Heilmann: Portsmouth.
Cartwright, N. D. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cartwright, N. D. (1999). The dappled world, a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International
Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041–1053.
Clement, J. J., & Ramirez, M. A. (Eds.). (2008). Model based learning and instruction in science.
Dortrecht: Springer.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for
effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494.
Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction.
Science & Education, 17(2–3), 143–514.
de Jong, T. (2006). Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532–533.
Duhem, P. (1978). Ziel und Struktur der phusikalischen theorien. Hamburg: Meiner.
Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning recource for inquiry and nature of science
understanding. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 147–177.
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. N. (2010). An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese, 172(2),
269–281.
Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Dortrecht: Kluwer.
Gobert, J., O’Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B., Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Examining the
relationship between students’ epistemologies of models and conceptual learning in three science
domains: Biology, physics, & chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5),
653–684.
Grandy, R. E. (1992). Theories of theories. a view from cognitive science. In J. Earman (Ed.), Inference,
explanation, and other frustrations. Essays in the philosophy of science (pp. 216–233). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Grandy, R. E., & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and the role of inquiry in school
science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16, 141–166.
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International
Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.
Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modelling theory in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modelling in science education. Science & Education, 16, 653–697.
Hestenes, D. (1992). ‘Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60,
732–748.

123
 M. Develaki

Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues relating to

integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14,
541–562.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science &
Education, 84(1), 5–26.
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science
knowledge framework for science teacher’s professional development. Computers & Education,
55(3), 1259–1269.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of
Science Education, 25, 1369–1386.
Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2005). The development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and
modelling: promoting, characterizing, and understanding the process. International Journal of
Science Education, 27(5), 549–573.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry
oriented instruction on sixth graders views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.
Kuhn, T. S. (1974). Logik der Forschung oder Psychologie der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. In I. Lakatos &
A. Musgrave (Eds.), Kritik und Erkenntnisfortschritt (pp. 1–23). Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1st
edition 1962).
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Ledreman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Inc.
Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-
scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry.
Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302.
Losee, J. (1990). A Historical Introduction to the philosophy of science. Oxford: University Press.
Matthews, M. R. (2007) (Ed.). Models in science and in science education. Science & education (Vol. 6,
pp. 647–652) (special issue).
McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: dispelling the myths of science.
In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp.
53–70). Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science.
Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science
in science education. Science & Education, 7, 511–532.
Mikelskis-Seifert, S., & Leisner-Bodenthin, A. (2007). Die Modellmethode. In S. Mikelskis-Seifert & T.
Rabe (Eds.), Physik Methodik (pp. 15–42). Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.
Morrison, M. S. (1999). Models as autonomous agents. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as
mediators (pp. 11–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morrison, M. S., & Morgan, M. (1999a). Introduction. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as
mediators (pp. 1–9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morrison, M. S., & Morgan, M. (1999b). Models as mediating instruments. In M. S. Morgan & M.
Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators (pp. 10–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National academy Press.
Nersessian, M. (2008). Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy
(Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry. Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 57–79).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington: The
National Academies Press.
Nola, R. (2004). Pendula, models, constructivism and reality. Science & Education, 13, 349–377.
Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models. International Journal
of Science Education, 33, 1109–1130.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should
be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

123
Key-aspects of Scientific Modeling Exemplified by School…

Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2008). Teaching about the epistemology of science in upper secondary schools: An
analysis of teachers’ classroom talk. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 289–315.
Schwarz, C. (2008). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through
modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93, 720–744.
Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Meta-modeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding
of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.
Stöckler, M. (1995). Theoretische Modelle im Lichte der Wissenschafttheorie. Praxis der Naturwis-
senschaften - Physik, 1, 16–22.
Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Suppes, P. (1962). Models of data in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of science. In E. Nagel, P.
Suppes & A. Tarski, Proceedings of the 1960 international Congress (pp. 252–261). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3),
179–218.
Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific
models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368.
van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modeling in science.
International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141–1153.
van Fraasen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Jooling, W. (2004). Roles of modeling in inquiry learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE international
conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT’04).
Vosniadou, S. (1996). Towards a revised cognitive psychology for new advances in learning and
instruction. Learning and Instruction, 6(2), 95–109.
Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy.
International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705–735.
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: a dynamic systemsperspective to making sense
of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry
as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941–967.
Winsberg, E. B. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science: A prelude to action. Science &
Education, 17(8–9), 799–803.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based
framework for socioscientific issues education’. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.

123