Análisis sistémico de la evolución de los componentes del modelo eléctrico de los estudiantes: Control, estructuras y procesos
Systemic analysis of the evolution of the components of the electrical model of the students: Control, structures and processes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1344/did.2019.5.26-42Keywords:
modelling, electric model, structure, control, processAbstract
Science curricula indicate the relevance of understanding electrical phenomena, due to the multiple current technological applications based on electricity. However, students have difficulty understanding the electromagnetic nature of matter, and empirical evidence is required of the ways in which students' ideas are transformed as they gain experience and conceptual knowledge about electricity. This study focuses on the analysis of secondary school students' explanations of electrical phenomena, with the purpose of characterizing the evolution of their models expressed during a didactic sequence based on electrification phenomena. The proposal of qualitative analysis, from a systemic perspective, identifies the structure, process and control components referred by the 30 students of the sample, in the explanations of five observed phenomena, characterizing the evolution of students' electrical model. Our results show that the learning trajectories of students are not convergent and present discontinuities. The decomposition of the electrical model has allowed us to show that students build models limited by the observed processes, and have difficulties to move to the microscopic level, which can help to guide the selection of phenomena by teachers to achieve more effective modeling processes.
References
Acher, A., Arcá, M., y Sanmartí, N. (2007). Modeling as a teaching learning process for understanding materials: A case study in primary education. Science Education, 91(3), 398-418.
Bach, J., y Márquez, C. (2017). El estudio de los fenómenos geológicos desde una perspectiva sistémica. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra, 25(3), 302.
Borges, A., y Gilbert. J. (1999). Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 95–117.
Boulter, C. J., y Buckley, B. C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. En J. K. Gilbert y C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in Science education (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht: Springer.
Duggan, S., y Gott, R. (1995). The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National Curriculum for Science. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 137-147.
Duit, R., y von Rhöneck, C. (1998). Learning and understanding key concepts of electricity. En A. Tiberghien, E. Leonard Jossem y J. Barojas (Eds.), Connecting research in Physics education with teacher education. An International Commission on Physics Education book.
Duncan, R. G., y Hmelo‐Silver, C. E. (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 606-609.
Duschl, R., Maeng, S., y Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123-182.
Furió C., Guisasola, J., y Almudi, J.M. (2004). Elementary electrostatic phenomena: historical hindrances and student’s difficulties. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology, 4(3), 291–313.
Furió, C., y Guisasola, J. (1998). Difficulties in learning the concept of electric field. Science Education, 82(4), 511–526.
Gilbert, J. K. y Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education (Vol. 9). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Guisasola, J. (2014). Teaching and learning electricity: The relations between macroscopic level observations and microscopic level theories. En R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 129-156). Dordrecht: Springer.
Halloun, I. (2004). Modeling theory in science education. Londres: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Harrison, A. G., y Treagust, D. F. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. En J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust y J. H. van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189-212). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hernández, R., Fernández, C., y Baptista, P. (2010). Metodología de la investigación. Perú: McGraw Hill Educación.
Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. y Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2003). Epistemological foundations of school science. Science & Education, 12, 27-43.
Knuuttila, T. (2005). Models, representation, and mediation. Philosophy of Science, 72(5), 1260–1271.
Lewin, W. (2012). Por amor a la física. Barcelona: Debate.
Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., y Constantinou, C. P. (2011). In Quest of productive modeling‐based learning discourse in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 919-951.
Lopes, J. y Costa, N. (2007). The evaluation of modelling competences: difficulties and potentials for the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 8811-851.
Marzabal Blancafort, A., e Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. (2017). Análisis de las estructuras textuales de los textos escolares de química en relación con su función docente. Enseñanza de las ciencias, 35(1), 111-132
Merino, C., y Sanmartí, N. (2008). How young children model chemical change. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.1039/b812408f
Merino Rubilar, C., e Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. (2011). Contribution to modelling in chemical change | Aportes a la modelización según el cambio químico. Educación Química, 22(3), 212-223.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Park, J., Kim, I., Kim, M., y Lee, M. (2001). Analysis of students’ processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1219–1236.
Schwartz, M. S., Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., y Tai, R. H. (2009). Depth versus breadth: How content coverage in high school science courses relates to later success in college science coursework. Science Education, 93(5), 798-826.
Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., y Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: a proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 4(1-2), 1-98.
Taber, K. (2018). Representations and visualisation in teaching and learning chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(2), 405–409.
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179-195.
Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in Physics. The part of common sense. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Cristian Merino
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication.
- Submitting a paper does not involve paying any fees.
- Texts will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work, provided they include an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship, its initial publication in this journal and the terms of the license.
- When citing works published in Didacticae, both the autor and the journal must be cited.
- Didacticae does not accept any responsibility for the points of view and statements made by the authors.
