![]() In another example, in order to build a model about the marine ecosystem with complex species behavior, dynamic representations were more suitable than static ones (Papaevripidou et al., 2007). Ryoo and Linn ( 2012) found that dynamic visualizations were more effective than static illustrations to depict dynamic processes, such as chemical reactions during photosynthesis. The resulting scientific models can be static, such as pictures, diagrams, graphs, equations, or they can be dynamic, e.g., video, animation, simulation (Gilbert & Justi, 2016). There has been considerable literature advocating learning science through creating models by drawing (Ainsworth et al., 2011 Bollen & Joolingen, 2013, van Joolingen et al., 2015, Heijnes et al., 2018 Prain & Tytler, 2012), programming (Louca & Zacharia, 2012 Wilensky & Reisman, 2006), or stop-motion animation (SMA) (Farrokhnia et al., 2020 Hoban & Nielsen, 2012 Wilkerson-Jerde et al., 2015). RQ2: to what extent do the students use mechanistic reasoning while discussing their stop-motion animations? RQ1: to what extent are 9th grade students able to model a phenomenon in classical mechanics using stop-motion animation? In particular, the present study focuses on answering the following research questions: The goal of this study is, therefore, to investigate how engaging the students in constructing a SMA induces their mechanistic reasoning. When all frames are arranged in sequence, students need to think about a coherent story representing the underlying process of the phenomenon, thus leading to the use of mechanistic reasoning. ![]() ![]() Creating each frame requires thinking about a step in the process. To model a phenomenon using stop-motion animation, students need to construct a series of frames representing the underlying process of the phenomenon. By creating and ordering multiple images of a process and sequencing these in the correct order we contend “chunking and sequencing,” the nature of SMA can be a support for students’ mechanistic reasoning. In this study, we investigated one potential support: using the creation of stop-motion animations (SMA) as a modeling tool. In view of the difficulty in promoting mechanistic reasoning, there is a need to support students in building such reasoning. ( 2014) showed that, even though students recognized the existence of water molecules, their explanations of evaporation were still not mechanistic due to the absence of activities of these entities bringing about evaporation. Another study documented that, even though the students were aware of human factors, as causal agents responsible for global climate change, their explanations failed to explain how the human action warmed the earth (Visintainer & Linn, 2015). ![]() ( 2014) noticed that students’ explanations of evolution failed to incorporate molecular entities, such as DNA and genes, even after instruction, leading to non-mechanistic explanations. However, incorporating relevant entities and how these entities engage in particular behavior to give rise to a phenomenon is reported to be especially difficult (de Andrade et al., 2019 Haskel-Ittah et al., 2019 Schwarz et al., 2014 Speth et al., 2014 Visintainer & Linn, 2015). ( 2019) noticed that the students who involved unobservable agents, “particles of air,” and the behavior of these particles, “move faster,” were able to explain why an increase in the temperature of a gas effected an increase in the pressure of that gas. Mechanistic explanations can provide such causation. Braaten and Windschitl ( 2011) defined good scientific explanations as explication, causation, or justification. Some studies consider mechanistic reasoning as a worthy thinking strategy for developing so-called “good” scientific explanations (Braaten & Windschitl, 2011 de Andrade et al., 2019 Talanquer, 2010). ( 2016) revealed that mechanistic reasoning was needed to understand molecular mechanisms in connecting genes to traits. This makes student B’s explanation a mechanistic one.Ī number of studies have demonstrated the value of mechanistic reasoning in promoting students’ understanding of concepts (Bolger et al., 2012 Southard et al., 2016 Talanquer, 2018). Student B’s explanation provides processes underlying such causality through including a mechanism in terms of unobservable causal agents, entities (water molecules), and what these entities do (an activity), i.e., “moving faster” and “break hydrogen bonds,” to enable the ice to become liquid water. Student A’s statement conveys a particular cause (heat) and an effect (liquid water) without considering how the cause brings about the effect. Student A says that “heat makes an ice cube turn into liquid water” student B states that “while heating an ice cube, water molecules are moving faster and they break the hydrogen bonds between molecules and eventually these molecules separate, thus forming liquid water.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |