the development of students’ justifications for their positions...

RE S EARCH ART I C L E

The development of students' justifications for theirpositions regarding two theoretical models: Electroncloud or sodium chloride crystal—After engagingin different learning activities

Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi1 | Lisa Martin-Hansen2

1Curriculum & Instruction, Sultan QaboosUniversity College of Education, Muscat, Oman2Science Education Department, California StateUniversity, Long Beach, Long Beach, California

CorrespondenceSulaiman M. Al-Balushi, Curriculum &Instruction, Sultan Qaboos University College ofEducation, Muscat, Oman.Email: [email protected]

AbstractThe purpose of this study was to explore high school stu-dents' ideas regarding two theoretical scientific models,either electron cloud or sodium chloride crystal, in the con-text of active learning in small groups. Conversations amongpeers regarding these models took place during two types ofactive learning activities: small-group discussion and whole-class debate. The study was conducted in four different highschool classes, each of which was in a different school forgirls in Oman. The study included 108 grade 10 female stu-dents. Two of the classes discussed the electron cloud andthe other two classes discussed the sodium chloride model.Qualitative data included students' written responses toprompts, class worksheets, and field notes of student ideas inclass debates. In each class, the teacher used a teachingsequence during which the participants expressed their justi-fications for their positions in writing regarding the particularmodel on five different occasions, as they progressedthrough three interactive small group learning activities. Theparticipants' written responses were analyzed using a codingscheme comprising of eight different categories describingthe participants' type of justifications regarding the theoreti-cal scientific models: nonsense, approval, mental, experi-mental, appreciative, external, structural, and modeling. Thefindings indicated that participants' justifications for theirpositions regarding theoretical scientific models tended tochange over time following each group learning activity.Participants focused their discussion more on external fac-tors, such as the teacher, textbook, religion, and media, afterdiscussions with peers in small groups. In contrast, later theirattention focused more on the submicroscopic structural

Received: 22 December 2017 Revised: 1 January 2019 Accepted: 16 January 2019

DOI: 10.1002/tea.21535

|

J Res Sci Teach. 2019;56:1011–1036. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1011

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4080-1203

http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea

orientations of the model under study during and afterengaging in a debating activity. The researchers reasonedthat the nature of cognitive demands during each type ofactive learning activity might play a role in this regard. How-ever, further research to advance the understanding of thisphenomenon is needed.

KEYWORDS

debating activity, electron cloud, sodium chloridecrystal, theoretical scientific models

1 | INTRODUCTION

Theoretical scientific models represent a conceptual hindrance for school students because of their levelof abstraction (Snir, Smith, & Raz, 2003) and hypothetical nature (Al-Balushi, 2011; Mathewson,1999). It has been reported that a considerable percentage of students from Grade 9 through touniversity level doubt the accuracy of the scientific representations and visual models that are usedto illustrate some highly abstract and theoretical constructs, such as the electron cloud, photons,sodium chloride crystals, and chemical bonding. Some go further and disbelieve in the existence ofthese constructs (Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013b).

Evaluating scientific models is a core practice among scientists (National Research Council [NRC],2007; Schwarz et al., 2009; Schwarz & White, 2005; Snir et al., 2003), during which models are revisedin light of new emerging evidence (Louca, Zacharia, & Constantinou, 2011). Giving students an opportu-nity to evaluate scientific models is a metamodeling practice that broadens their conceptualization ofmodels and modeling in science (Pluta, Chinn, & Duncan, 2011; Schwarz & White, 2005; Snir et al.,2003). Although there have been a number of studies on students' evaluation of scientific models, stu-dents' justifications for their stance regarding their evaluation of the models, especially regarding theirtrust or distrust of theoretical models, have rarely been addressed. This article examines and classifiesthese justifications. The uniqueness of this study stems from its tracing of the development of the justifica-tions during classroom interactions within a class environment in a sequence of three active learning activ-ities: two small-group discussion activities and one whole-class debating activity.

The authors anticipate that the results of the current study will help researchers to understandwhether different active learning activities transform students' perceptions regarding theoreticalmodels, and whether these different learning interactions with peers affect students' perceptions dif-ferently. The study will also shed light on the types of epistemological obstacles that hold studentsback from fully understanding theoretical scientific models, appreciating the usefulness of their exis-tence, and the role they play in scientific advancement. These findings will help curriculum designersand science teachers to develop the types of class activities and pedagogical techniques that couldhelp students comprehend theoretical models, utilize them in their explanations of natural phenom-ena, and understand and embrace their important role in the progress of scientific knowledge.

1.1 | Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework of this research is organized around three aspects of practices that shapethe learning of science: material, conceptual, and social (Fretz et al., 2002). In this study, the material

1012 AL-BALUSHI AND MARTIN-HANSEN|

aspect comprises the scientific models themselves and their respective representations; the conceptualaspect refers to students' conceptualization and perceptions of scientific models; the social aspectinvolves different learning activities, such as group discussions, collaborative teamwork, and whole-class debate. The three aspects interact with each other to shape students' conceptualization of scien-tific models.

1.1.1 | Material aspect: Scientific models and their representations

Scientific models represent the intellectual products of science and illustrate ways of thinking. Theyare abstract and simplified representations of the central features of natural phenomena (Espinet,Izquierdo, Bonil, & Ramos De Robles, 2012; Fortus, Shwartz, & Rosenfeld, 2016; Gericke &Hagberg, 2010). This disclosure of central features allows scientists to use models as tools to explain,describe, and predict the world around us. Models serve as an intermediate position between theoryand phenomenon (Cokelez, 2012; Espinet et al., 2012; Krell, Belzen, & Krüger, 2014). Thus, theyare not exact copies of their targets. They range in their abstractness from concrete models, such as aphysical globe for the Earth and a plastic model for the human skeleton, to abstract theoretical scien-tific models, such as electron clouds, photons, and mathematical models (Cokelez, 2012; Harrison &Treagust, 2000b; Nichols, Ranasinghe, & Hanan, 2012; Schwarz & White, 2005; Won, Yoon, &Treagust, 2014).

In addition, multiple models can be designed to respond to complex phenomena and/or test differ-ent hypotheses (Krell et al., 2014; Nichols et al., 2012; Schwarz et al., 2009; Schwarz & White,2005; Won et al., 2014). However, the sum of different models of the same phenomenon does notalways equal the whole phenomenon because: (i) scientists have not yet understood the phenomenonfully; and/or (ii) the models overlap with each other. In addition, a phenomenon cannot be fullyreflected in a model, otherwise the model would be an example of the phenomenon (Harrison &Treagust, 2000a).

Scientific models also serve as valuable teaching tools that facilitate students' understandingof scientific theories, laws, and principles (Coll, France, & Taylor, 2005; Crawford & Cullin,2004; Harrison & Treagust, 2000b; Hart, 2008; Schwarz et al., 2009; Treagust, Chittleborough, &Mamiala, 2004; Won et al., 2014). For students, on many occasions, models provide concretestructures that allow them to construct scientifically adequate meanings (Barab, Hay, Barnett, &Keating, 2000; Cokelez, 2012; Pluta et al., 2011). Thus, it is important to make sure that learnersof science properly understand scientific models and their nature, and utilize them to describe,explain, and predict scientific phenomena as this is a fundamental goal in science education(American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; Gericke & Hagberg,2010; NRC, 1996, 2012; NGSS Lead States, 2013; Schwarz et al., 2009; Snir et al., 2003; Zhang,Liu, & Krajcik, 2006), and an important and legitimate area of research in science education(Pluta et al., 2011). We often find that in many cultures people can have difficulty understandinghow scientists do not believe in scientific ideas as one would believe in a religious faith (Maher,1990). Science relies upon evidence. Science also explains and explores the natural world whilereligion delves into the supernatural. Therefore, it is necessary to teach about the ways in whichscientists do their work and how their work to decipher nature relies upon acceptance of scientificideas—not belief like a religious belief. This does not mean that a scientist cannot be a religiousperson. Rather, science is a different way of knowing about the world. In fact, scientific accep-tance is more tentative and is seldom ever 100% as one leaves room for revision (van Fraassen,1980, p. 281).

AL-BALUSHI AND MARTIN-HANSEN 1013|

1.1.2 | Conceptual aspect: Learners' conceptualization and perceptions

Models are conceptual representations (Shen & Confrey, 2007; Won et al., 2014). To scientists, a sci-entific model is “a set of assumptions that include theoretical entities and relations among them thatare designed to help them think about how to explain some aspect of reality” (Snir et al., 2003,p. 797). Scientists also regard scientific models as tools for generating new insights and understand-ings (Trier, Krüger, & Upmeier zu Belzen, 2014).

Students are becoming increasingly aware that scientific models are conceptual inventions by scien-tists (Al-Balushi, 2011) that are inspired by their imaginations (Al-Balushi, 2009; Harrison & Treagust,2000b; Mathewson, 1999). However, research conducted on students' perceptions of scientific models hasconcluded that their understanding of such models is inadequate (Krell et al., 2014). For instance, manystudents find models confusing and challenging (Harrison & Treagust, 2000a). They also believe in aone-to-one correspondence between scientific models and the constructs they represent (Won et al., 2014;Zhang et al., 2006). This naïve realism position persists with students up to Grade 10, and sometimesbeyond (Al-Balushi, 2011; Harrison & Treagust, 2000b; Pluta et al., 2011; Treagust et al., 2004). Manystudents think of abstract constructs in concrete terms and tend not to think beyond a model's surface attri-butes (Harrison & Treagust, 2000a). Researchers reason that while scientists, as experts, move freelyacross different multiple representations, and focus on the submicroscopic and conceptual features of sci-entific models, novices, including students, think at the macroscopic level and focus on the surface fea-tures of the models, even if these models are highly theoretical abstract models (Al-Balushi, 2013a;Barak & Hussein-Farraj, 2013; Snir et al., 2003; Won et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2006). Also, students'achievements in science and mathematics are found to be significantly related to their understanding ofmodels and modeling (Krell et al., 2014). Another explanation for students' limited understanding of sci-entific models is their capacity for abstract reasoning. For instance, learners with weak abstract reasoningstruggle with scientific models, and find them confusing and challenging (Harrison & Treagust, 2000a).

Students do not realize that the modeling process adopted by scientists is subjective and tentative,that models are not known facts (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002; Pluta et al.,2011; Snir et al., 2003), and that models differ in the potential they possess to approximate reality,and explain and predict natural phenomena (Schwarz & White, 2005). They lack a fundamentalunderstanding of the explanatory, testable, and predictable features of scientific models (Schwarz &White, 2005; Treagust et al., 2004). In addition, some students believe that certain scientific modelsdo not represent the constructs and phenomena that they are supposed to represent. Some go furtherto doubt the existence of some highly abstract unobservable constructs (Al-Balushi, 2011).Researchers reason that students are rarely able to take a position based on valid justification, authen-ticate their positions, and refute with reasons (Jin, Mehl, & Lan, 2015).

Modeling, model-based reasoning, and metamodeling are considered higher-order thinking skills(Pluta et al., 2011; Schwarz & White, 2005; Treagust et al., 2004). A positive correlation has beenobserved between students' level of epistemological understanding of models and their deep cognitiveprocessing (Sinsa, Savelsbergha, van Joolingenb, & van Hout-Wolters, 2009). Processing models cogni-tively places substantial cognitive demands on learners (Nichols et al., 2012; Won et al., 2014). Thus, theabstract nature of some scientific models exerts a cognitive pressure that could lead students to doubt thecredibility of these models (Al-Balushi, 2011; Hsu & Yang, 2007). The construction of mental models,spatial manipulations, logical reasoning, and mental transformations between different representations areexamples of these cognitive demands (Nichols et al., 2012; Shen & Confrey, 2007). The intensity of thecognitive demands increases for theoretical models, and consequently learners face difficulties in compre-hending these models, testing their validity, and utilizing them to construct scientifically accepted descrip-tions, predictions, and explanations (Schwarz & White, 2005; Won et al., 2014).


The cognitive demands also increase when a scientific representation or phenomenon has multi-ple models. In this instance, some students are forced to make comparisons between these models, asif there were only one correct model. They face difficulty comprehending that each model representsa specific pattern related to the phenomenon under study and that multiple models together give amore holistic view of the phenomenon (Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013a; Halloun, 2007; Nichols et al.,2012; Snir et al., 2003; Won et al., 2014). Research indicates that it is difficult for students as novicesto translate across multiple types of representation (e.g., graphs, tables, 2D, 3D) and across multiplelevels of representation (i.e., macroscopic, submicroscopic, symbolic; Al-Balushi, 2009, 2013a;Nichols et al., 2012; Won et al., 2014). They are unable to connect different representations to con-struct a meaningful understanding of a phenomenon and prefer to use a single representation withwhich they manage to construct accepted interpretations (Won et al., 2014). However, as this doesnot work successfully most of the time, they are likely to form misconceptions (Al-Balushi, 2009;Coll, et al., 2005; Harrison & Treagust, 2000b).

It is not enough that we teach students to create models, understand them, and use them to explainand predict phenomena. Without metaknowledge of the nature of models, the process of scientificmodeling, and its purpose, modeling instruction and a modeling-based curriculum might fail(Schwarz & White, 2005). Metaknowledge of models is defined for the purpose of this article as“knowledge about the nature and purpose of scientific models” (Schwarz & White, 2005, p. 166). Itis the “awareness of one's epistemic cognition” (Pluta et al., 2011, p. 492) regarding models. Interest-ingly, although engaging in modeling practices is dependent on content knowledge, metaknowledgeof modeling is independent of content area (Fortus et al., 2016).

Asking students to evaluate scientific models is one way of helping them construct their meta-knowledge of the nature of models. It also helps educators understand the nature of students' meta-knowledge of scientific models and then plan how to go about fostering understanding. When askedto state criteria for good scientific models, middle school students emphasized the importance of clar-ity, explanatory function, and pictorial modality. They also highlighted the importance of the avail-ability of appropriate details or complexity, and considered that empirical evidence is essential insupporting scientific models (Pluta et al., 2011). In addition, accuracy, plausible mechanisms, consis-tency, and utility of models are among the criteria that students tend to emphasize (Schwarz & White,2005). Students' evaluation of scientific models—a process that requires an ability to justify theirpositions—tends to be subjective and tentative. Research shows that students are unable, most of thetime, to justify and support their evaluation and judgment with relevant evidence (Jin et al., 2015).

1.1.3 | Social aspect: Classroom interactions

Science is a social activity that is centered on models (Espinet et al., 2012). Models embody scientificrepresentations that are “central to interaction among scientists. They constitute a shared interactivespace that facilitates communication, as these representations may be used as a common languagetool” (Stylianou, 2011, p. 276). Science learning requires social interaction and scientific discoursethat entail multimodal communication concerning phenomena through which meaning is constructed.Also, plausible conceptual change regarding multiple models and representations can be supportedby social dialogue and negotiation (Nichols et al., 2012).

Social interaction in the classroom refers to “the discursive activities and interactions among classmembers (including both teacher and students), as well as the characteristics of the class discourse”(Louca & Zacharia, 2012, p. 482). This interaction is present in many active learning pedagogicalstrategies as it can enhance the metacognition of the individual. We define active learning similarlyto (Tandogan & Orhan, 2007, p. 71) where “the learner takes the responsibility of his/her learning


and s/he is given the opportunity to make decisions about various dimensions of the learning processand to perform self-regulation.”

Science as a discourse is a mix of linguistic, numerical, tabular, and graphical modes that arelinked together to form scientific explanations (Prain, Tytler, & Peterson, 2009). If any social andactive learning activity is to be successful in helping students connect these modes together to learnscience, it should facilitate the transformation of everyday language into a language of science. Thiscan then contribute to students' efforts to transform everyday facts into scientific knowledge. Thus,language becomes an interpretive medium for making sense of students' different experiences and italso allows them to participate in communities of practice, for instance through active learning inter-action. Language is considered a pathway to abstract thinking, and consequently what students sayand write can be used as evidence of meaning-making—the “whats” and “hows” of their thinking(Espinet et al., 2012). In addition, discourse about the differences and/or similarities between generalterms used in language versus scientific terms can also help students to gain a better understanding ofthe nuances of scientific representations (Russell, Longden, & McGuigan, 1991; Skamp, 2004).

Social interaction has an influence on students' modeling comprehension and their learning from rep-resentations (Louca & Zacharia, 2012; Nichols et al., 2012; Nichols, Hanan, & Ranasinghe, 2013). Forinstance, encouraging students to negotiate the shared and unshared attributes of different models ofatoms, molecules, and chemical bonds leads to these models being utilized in the students' explanations,and consequently produces a better understanding of abstract concepts (Harrison & Treagust, 2000a).Indeed, the negotiation of issues related to models and their representations, mediated by the teacher,helps students to develop a better conceptual understanding and grasp of related natural phenomena andtheir respective scientific concepts; it also allows teachers to understand their students' thinking in greaterdepth (Prain et al., 2009). In addition, when students negotiate and evaluate scientific models, their meta-modeling knowledge is enhanced (Pluta et al., 2011; Schwarz & White, 2005; Snir et al., 2003).

Conceptual change can be fostered by discussion among classmates concerning the relationshipsbetween scientific representations and models. Negotiations with their peers lead students to modifytheir reasoning by reflecting on the features of the representations of the phenomenon under study,and linking them to its verbal, visual, and spatial aspects. Students' argumentative discourse seems toimprove as a result of this interaction if they have the motivation and ability to do so. This happensthrough negotiation and the co-construction of shared understandings (Nichols et al., 2013; Stylianou,2011). The accuracy of students' scientific language when expressing their understanding of scientificmodels and representations also seems to improve through collaborative interactions and negotiation(Nichols et al., 2012, 2013).

We know very little about the influence that class discourse and active learning interactions withpeers have on students' evaluation of scientific models and their justifications of their positionsregarding these models. Most of the studies that have evaluated students' positions regarding scien-tific models and their modeling levels have not taken interaction with peers into consideration. Also,most studies that have investigated both classroom interaction and models together have aimed toexamine the effect of classroom interaction on students' modeling as an end product (Louca &Zacharia, 2012). In contrast, this study traces the change in students' ideas as they evaluate scientificmodels and their respective justifications when interacting with peers during a sequence of threeactive learning activities: two small-group discussions and one whole-class debate. This study is alsounique in terms of inspecting the nature and direction of the influence of these two types of learningactivities on students' positions. Weighing the extent of the effectiveness of different active learningactivities in influencing students' changes of perspective has not been thoroughly investigated in sci-ence education research.


1.2 | Purpose of the study

There has been ample evidence in previous studies that students can evaluate the credibility of scien-tific models, create acceptable criteria for good models, and describe the purposes and features of dif-ferent models adequately (Al-Balushi, 2011; Pluta et al., 2011; Schwarz & White, 2005; Treagustet al., 2004). The purpose of this study was to explore students' justifications for their positionsregarding two theoretical scientific models, either the electron cloud or sodium chloride crystal, inthe context of engaging them in different active learning activities. We examined how this type ofmetaknowledge, reflected in participants' justifications, developed as they progressed through differ-ent learning activities. These activities included two small-group discussion activities and one whole-class debating activity. There was no interference from the teachers, who played the role of media-tors. Furthermore, the participants were instructed after each group activity to jot down their personalpositions and justifications individually, regardless of the position of the group in which they worked,thus allowing them individually to take a position that might be different from that of their group.There was encouragement from the facilitator to express one's own ideas, with no penalty for beingincorrect, as the goal of this exercise was to examine one's thinking over time. Thus, the study aimedto answer the following research questions:

1. How do Grade 10 students justify their positions regarding the two theoretical scientific models,either the electron cloud or sodium chloride crystal?

2. How do students' justifications for their positions regarding these two theoretical scientificmodels develop as they progress through different active learning activities?

The study was not designed to measure students' understanding of these two submicroscopicmodels. We used these two examples as a means of understanding what students bring to the dia-logue when they justify their positions regarding these constructs as viable models. Understandingthe types of justifications and epistemological stance would enable us to sense how students' sciencelearning shapes their thinking and perceptions regarding the constructs they interact with in theirlearning of science, especially the unobservable constructs. We were interested in knowing how stu-dents employ their understandings and experiences to shape their metaknowledge, and how they jus-tify their positions regarding theoretical scientific models. We also aimed to discover how certainactive learning activities in the class contribute to the construction of such metaknowledge of scien-tific models.

It is worth noting that although participants' responses might reflect a wide range of misconcep-tions regarding the two constructs under study, it was not the purpose of the study to describe, clas-sify, or justify these misconceptions.

2 | METHOD

2.1 | Participants

The participants comprised 108 female students in Grade 10 from four different schools in Oman.Two schools were located in Muscat and two were in Al-Batina North. Four science female teacherswith a master degree in science education were asked to conduct the study in their schools. We choseteachers with similar qualifications and teaching reputations. They were known by their supervisorsas active teachers who implement student-based teaching approaches. These teachers were holders ofmaster degrees in science education and graduated from the same institution.


In Oman, Grades 5–12 are taught in single-gendered schools by same-gender teachers. As themajority of those enrolling in master programs in science education in Oman are female, we were notable to identify male teachers of Grade 10 students with the right qualifications and experience toconduct the study. Thus, all the participants were female.

One Grade 10 class was randomly chosen from each of these schools. Participants from the fourschools were located in middle-class urban neighborhoods, in which most families have access to theinternet. Based on the participants' previous performance, expressed in their science scores in the firstsemester, they were above-average achievers. The study was conducted in the second semester.

2.2 | Selection of the two theoretical models

Both models are presented visually in the students' science textbook which is part of the national sci-ence curriculum that public schools use in Oman. The Grade 10 science textbook has four differentunits in four different disciplines: biology, chemistry, physics, and environmental science. The biol-ogy and chemistry units are taught during the first semester, and the other two units are taught in thesecond semester. The electron cloud model and sodium chloride crystal are presented in the sciencetextbook in the “Matter and Energy in Chemical Reactions” unit. This unit is composed of two chap-ters: (i) Structure of Matter and Electronic Configuration; and (ii) Chemical Bonds. The electroncloud is discussed in the former and the sodium chloride crystal is discussed in the latter. The partici-pants studied these chapters during the first semester, and we then conducted the study during thesecond month of the second semester.

The two theoretical models in the study were chosen because of their type of representation. Eachof them is highly abstract, with a visual representation provided in the Grade 10 student science text-book. In a previous study by Al-Balushi (2011), it was reported that high school students cast doubton the accuracy of visual models that represent highly abstract models, including electron cloud andsodium chloride crystal. The study found that 26% of Grade 10 students doubted whether the text-book illustration of the electron cloud represented this construct accurately, and 20.1% doubted theaccuracy of the sodium-chloride crystal model. Moreover, 11.2% of Grade 10 students thought thatthe electron cloud did not exist, and 11.3% thought the same about the sodium chloride crystal. Thesewere the top constructs to receive such high percentages of doubt. The sample included 845 studentsin Grades 9–11, among whom were 264 Grade 10 students.

2.3 | Study design and procedure

In this exploratory study, we used an analytical descriptive approach, which depended on qualitativedata. Data included participants' five sets of written responses to written prompts over three differentclass sessions. The questions and the duration of each class session are illustrated in Table 1. Eachsession was conducted on a different day. Thus, the study lasted for 3 days.

To collect participants' justifications for their positions regarding the two scientific theoreticalconstructs during different active learning activities, we designed a data collection sequence thatincluded two types of learning interactions: small-group discussion and whole-class debate. This datacollection sequence is shown in Table 1 for the electron cloud model, which was used in two classes.The sodium chloride model followed a similar data collection sequence and was used in the othertwo classes. As Arabic is the language of science instruction in public schools in Oman, the wholestudy was carried out in Arabic.

Each session was conducted on a different day. In Vote I, we used diagrams of the elec-tron cloud and sodium chloride crystal models found in the students' textbook as a baseline of


their initial interpretation of their ideas. It is important to note that the voting served as a wayof tracking how students' ideas changed over time. This strategy was used as a pedagogicalstrategy. It was not used as an illustration of how scientific consensus occurs as scientists donot simply “vote” to determine whether or not a model is useful. The science teachers of theclasses that participated in the study were asked to be the study research assistants handlingthe administration of the study. They were instructed to provide a brief introduction to thestudy, distribute, and collect the voting slips, and facilitate the group discussions and classdebate. They were instructed not to provide further information or clues, or guide the discus-sions in any particular direction.

The number of students in each group during the small-group discussions ranged from four to six stu-dents, depending on the number of students in each class. Class A (n = 18) had three groups of six stu-dents. Classes B and C (n = 28 each) had five groups of five to six students. Class D (n = 34) had sevengroups of four to five students. Students in each class were grouped this way before the start of the study.This grouping remained in place when the small-group discussions were conducted.

TABLE 1 The data collection sequence of the study in the electron cloud classes

Session Activity Description Duration (min)

Session one Introduction • A brief introduction of the study delivered by the researchassistant informing participants of the purpose of the study andits procedure.

5

Vote Ia • Does the following diagram represent the electron cloud? Justifyyour position.

7

Group Discussion I • Participants discussed their responses to the question in smallgroups and used a worksheet to write down these responses(10 min).

• Then, each group presented their main opinions to the wholeclass (5 min).

15

Vote IIa • Does the following diagram represent the electron cloud? Justifyyour position.

7

Total = 34

Session two Vote IIIa • Do you believe that the electron cloud exists? Justify yourposition.

7

Group Discussion II Participants discussed their responses to the question in smallgroups and used a worksheet to write down these responses(10 min).

• Then, each group presented their main opinions to the wholeclass (5 min).

15

Vote IVa • Do you believe that the electron cloud exists? Justify yourposition

7

Total = 29

Session three Whole class debate Participants were divided into two teams: (i) those who believe inthe existence of the construct under study; and (ii) those who donot believe in it.

• Each team was given 10 min to write down their supportingarguments in a worksheet.

• Then, the debate started with each team stating one of theirarguments and the other responding, and so on. This lasted for20 min.

30

Vote Va • Do you believe that the electron cloud exists? Justify yourposition.

7

Total = 37

a A slip of paper was distributed to each participant, who was asked to respond to the assigned question individually by writing on theslip of paper, which was then collected.


In the debating activity, the teachers were directed to divide students into simulated teams adopt-ing a position that might or might not be the actual position of the participants. This was done torequire students to think carefully about the different perspectives people may have regarding scien-tific models, and in practical terms to have semiequivalent teams in terms of number. The participantsgenerated their argued responses during the debate based on their different experiences, backgrounds,and cognitive abilities. Debating was used as a vehicle to make these hidden characteristics visible.After the debate, the participants were asked to state their personal position when they completedVote 5, regardless of their team's position during the debate, thereby providing information abouttheir final individual and personal ideas regarding the use of models in science.

In summary, there were three main sources of data during this study—written responses toprompts, class worksheets, and field notes.

The first type of data collected was participants' individual written responses to the questions statedin Table 1. There were five times at which we collected these individual responses. These took place, asshown in Table 1, at the beginning and end of the two small-group discussions—Group Discussion Iand Group Discussion II—and at the end of the whole-class debate. On each of these occasions, we dis-tributed a slip of paper with the question shown in Table 1 and asked participants to write down theirresponses. Each time we gave them 7 min to respond. Then we collected the paper slips.

The second type of data we collected was group worksheets during the small-group discussion andwhole-class debate activities. To facilitate students' participations in small-group discussions, we distrib-uted a simple worksheet to each group to write down their justifications for their group's position inresponse to the discussion questions (see Table 1). At the end of each discussion activity, we collectedthese worksheets. Furthermore, for the debating activity, we gave each team a worksheet to write downtheir claims and supporting justifications for these claims in one column. In another column, we askedthem to write down their responses to the claims they heard from the opposite team. We then collectedthese worksheets. We used the worksheets to support the data we collected from the voting slips.

The third source of data was the conversations that took place during the debating activity. Oneof the research assistants was present during this activity in each class and took notes of students'ideas expressed during the debates. These data were used to provide additional clarification of theindividual and group written justifications and comments.

The first author trained the four teachers in the implementation of the procedure of the study. Hesat with each of them and explained the details of the study. In terms of the debating activity, detailedinstructions were given to them on how to lead the debating activity in the study. These teachers hadbeen trained to use this technique during their undergraduate and master studies.

2.4 | Data analysis

In all, 540 voting slips were collected from the 108 participants in the four classes after the fivevotes. The voting slips contained a total of 1,022 responses and justifications provided by theparticipants. The participants' responses to the votes were classified into different categories by aresearch assistant. A constant comparative coding procedure (Creswell, 2008) was used. Thisprocedure was first used on a random sample of 94 responses. This process resulted in eight maincategories of participants' justifications for their positions. These categories were used as a cod-ing scheme for the participants' responses and are described in Table 2. To establish the reliabil-ity of the analysis, the same sample of responses was then categorized by another researchassistant. First, both research assistants met to discuss the task and the analytic procedure. Then,five randomly selected responses were discussed and categorized according to the categories inTable 2. The discussion aimed to reach mutual understanding of the categories and analytic


procedure. Next, the second research assistant analyzed the 94 randomly selected responses inde-pendently. The reliability coefficient estimated by calculating the inter-rater agreement betweenthe two coders (i.e., the two research assistants) (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was 0.75. Then, allresponses were classified by the first research assistant. Afterwards, frequencies and percentageswere used to represent the findings. The written examples provided in this article were translatedinto English from the original Arabic version. The translation was done by two postgraduate stu-dents who were fluent in both Arabic and English.

3 | RESULTS

The main purpose of the study was to explore students' justifications for their positions regarding twotheoretical scientific models, either electron cloud or sodium chloride crystal, in the context ofengagement in different active learning activities. Figure 1 shows two examples of voting slips filledout by the participants and Figure 2 shows two examples of group worksheets filled out by the

TABLE 2 The main types of justification found in participants' responses

Justification type Description Examples

Level 0: No or irrelevant justification provided

Nonsense The response makes no sense or is not understood. • The crystal is a rumor of imagination• The human brain tolerates expanding outside

its range.

Approval The response is merely a statement of approval ofthe validity of the diagram or the submicroscopicconstruct.

• This cloud exists.• This crystal (of sodium chloride) is real.

Level I: Most naïve about how science works

External The response refers to the influence of someexternal factors on shaping students' beliefsregarding scientific models.

• I saw this electron cloud on TV.• Some students did not study this crystal in the

class.

Level II: Beginning to understand how scientific ideas come about

Mental The response emphasizes the role of imagination inconstructing the scientific model of thesubmicroscopic construct.

• Scientists are able to imagine the electroncloud.

• No one is able to imagine the sodium chloridecrystal.

Experimental The response emphasizes the role ofexperimentation in constructing the scientificmodel of the submicroscopic construct.

• There is no evidence to prove that this cloudis real.

• Scientists conducted many studies to prove theexistence of this crystal.

Appreciative The response demonstrates belief in scientists'ability to construct a “correct” scientific modelbecause of their successful construction of othervalid models previously.

• Since scientists were able to discover theelectrons, they could discover the electroncloud.

• Scientists have made many discoveries andwere able to discover this crystal.

Level III: Somewhat sophisticated understanding

Modeling The response refers to different modeling-relatedterminology such as theories and scientificmodels.

• A scientist could disprove this (electron) cloudmodel.

• The crystal is a visual explanatory model.

Level IV: Most sophisticated understanding

Structural The response adopts submicroscopic terminologiesand explanations that focus on the structuralorientation of the construct.

• If the electron cloud does not exist, electronswill fall onto the nucleus.

• Negative chlorine ions and positive sodiumions attract each other and thus they appear asthis shape.


participants. The diagrams included in these figure are the same diagrams found in the Omani Grade10 students’ science textbook. In addition, Tables 3–6 illustrate the results based on the codingscheme shown in Table 2.

This section is organized according to the four classes that participated in the study. As wewere interested in detecting how students' justifications altered after each active learning activity,we present the data for each class and detect the pattern of students' responses after each activity.We believe that it optimally serves the purpose of the study to let the reader track the flow ofthinking in each class. Then, we construct general patterns of students' justifications for each ofthe two classes that discussed the same construct. Afterwards, students' justifications for theirpositions regarding the two submicroscopic constructs understudy are discussed collectively.Also, the discussion of the results focuses on all categories except “Nonsense” and “Approval,”which indicate that the participants' responses did not go beyond the statements in the questionsthat they received.

We categorized the responses into a range from most naïve ideas to most sophisticated ideasabout scientific constructs and how they are represented in scientific models:

FIGURE 1 Examples of voting slips filled out by the participants: Vote 1 for the electron cloud and Vote 2 for the sodiumchloride crystal. The diagrams included are the same diagrams found in the Omani Grade 10 student science textbook [Colorfigure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 2 Examples of group worksheets filled out by the participants: Worksheet 1 for the electron cloud and Worksheet2 for the sodium chloride crystal [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]


http://wileyonlinelibrary.com

http://wileyonlinelibrary.com

• Level 0 (no or irrelevant justification provided) includes Nonsense and Approval statements,when the student provides no justification or just approves the main statement in the questionregarding the submicroscopic construct.

• Level I (most naïve about how science works) consists of External Factors, where the person hasbeen influenced by an outside source such as a television program or other outside influence thatmay or may not be scientific.

• Level II (beginning to understand how scientific ideas come about) includes Appreciative, Menta-l/Imaginative, and Experimental. All three of these point to being aware of how scientists areinvolved with the ideas that they study and the evidence they gather to describe thingsscientifically.

• Level III (somewhat sophisticated understanding) contains the category Modeling as the studentuses the term “model” or “modeling” to discuss the scientific construct, showing an awarenessthat the representation is, in fact, a model.

• Level IV (most sophisticated understanding) focuses upon the Structural orientation of the scien-tific model and how it is similar to or different from what might be the actual structure of the sci-entific construct.

3.1 | Class A: The electron cloud model

Table 3 provides the coding of the responses collected from Class A regarding their positions withrespect to the electron cloud model.

It can be observed from the data in Table 3 that the structural orientation is the highest category.This started at a high level, then fluctuated up and down, before ending high. Students within thisclass discussed some submicroscopic ideas, such as the importance of having the electron cloud, howthe electrons rotated within the cloud, and the importance of the existence of the cloud for scientiststo discover the atom. They compared two analogies, namely the solar system analogy and the smoke

TABLE 3 Frequencies and percentages of types of participants' justifications of their positions regarding the electron cloudmodel in Class A (n = 18)

Justification type

Vote 1 Vote 2 Vote 3 Vote 4 Vote 5 Total

f % f % f % f % f % f %


Nonsense 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Approval 5 16.13 5 17.24 17 39.53 10 30.30 2 4.88 39 22.03


External 7 22.58 7 24.14 8 18.60 11 33.33 4 9.76 37 20.90


Mental 1 3.23 4 13.79 3 6.98 6 18.18 7 17.07 21 11.86

Experimental 0 0.00 2 6.90 3 6.98 2 6.06 2 4.88 9 5.08

Appreciative 3 9.68 4 13.79 0 0.00 2 6.06 0 0.00 9 5.08


Modeling 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.33 1 3.03 2 4.88 4 2.27


Structural 15 48.38 7 24.14 11 25.58 1 3.03 24 58.54 58 32.78

Total 31 100 29 100 43 100 33 100 41 100 177 100


analogy, to justify their positions. They explained that the atom was three-dimensional (3D), and thusthe cloud or “smoke” idea was a better fit than the solar system analogy, which is two-dimensional(2D). Examples of this class's structural responses were:

• The cloud is important to make electrons rotate.• The cloud is important so electrons do not fall and destroy the nucleus.• This model does not show how electrons move.

This class recorded the highest percentage for the external aspect among all four classes partici-pating in the study. The external factors category was the second highest in this class and it main-tained a steady increase until the debate activity, when it declined. Students in this class referred tosome external factors and persons that influenced the shaping of their beliefs regarding the electroncloud model, such as teachers, media, printed materials, and religious beliefs. For instance, partici-pants in Class A wrote:

• I saw this on TV.• Students do not believe in this cloud because teachers do not explain it well to them.• We have to believe in the existence of this cloud because we are Muslims and Muslims believe in

science.

In this class also, the mental/imaginative aspect started at a low level, then it gained momentumas the learning activities progressed. In contrast, the experimental, appreciative, and modeling aspectsdid not gain the same momentum. The modeling aspect appeared only toward the end of the study.

3.1.1 | Development of students' justifications as they progressed through different learning activities inClass A

Table 3 shows that the only aspect that increased after each active learning activity was the mentalaspect. The external factors category increased after the two small-group discussions, but thendecreased after the whole-class debate. In contrast, the structural orientation aspect decreased sharplyafter each small-group discussion and then increased noticeably after the whole-class debate. The fol-lowing excerpt is from the conversation that took place during the debate activity in Class A. Team Eadopted the position of believing in the existence of the electron cloud, while Team F adopted theopposite position. The excerpt demonstrates how the debate shifted the focus of the participants backto the structural orientation aspect:

• Team E: If there is no electron cloud, then the electrons will fall onto the nucleus.• Team F: The cloud is an imaginary and illusionary thing. Whether it is there or not, the electrons

will fall if there are no orbitals.• Team E: The atom is 3D; it is not like having orbitals. Orbitals are 2D. The cloud is 3D.• Team F: If there are no orbitals, electrons will mix. This way, the electrons will collide with each

other, lose energy, and fall on the nucleus.• Team E: You do not need orbitals to hold the electrons. Look at the stars as they spread in the

sky. They do not fall and there are no real orbitals to hold them.

This dominance of structural submicroscopic ideas during the debate in this class resulted in asharp increase in the structural aspect afterwards.


3.2 | Class B: The electron cloud model

Table 4 illustrates the coding of the responses provided by Class B regarding their positions withrespect to the electron cloud model.

It is noticeable that the mental and experimental aspects started at a high level, then they fluctu-ated a little, before ending at a high level after the debate. Excluding approval, both the mental andexperimental aspects dominated most of the participants' responses. Appreciative, external, and struc-tural aspects did not receive much focus from the participants. In contrast, the modeling aspectappeared at a remarkably high level in this class compared to the other three classes. In this regard,students responded that:

• There are other models, not only this cloud model.• Another scientist will come along and discover the weaknesses in this model.• Scientists look at things from different angles and this cloud is one of these.• This is the closest theory to reality.• The atom is like a universe. Every time they discover a new thing in it, we have to believe in new

models.

3.2.1 | Development of students' justifications as they progressed through different learning activities inClass B

The modeling aspect was the only aspect to go through a noticeable change after Group Discussion I,and it increased fivefold. After Group Discussion II, there was a noticeable increase in the structuralorientation aspect. Moreover, three aspects seemed to be affected positively by the debate activity.These were the mental, experimental, and modeling aspects. In contrast again, the structural orienta-tion and external aspects decreased after this activity. The following extract illustrates the dominantideas that were stressed during the class debate, which led to an increase in mental, experimental, and

TABLE 4 Frequencies and percentages of types of participants' justifications of their positions regarding the electron cloudmodel in Class B (n = 28)

Justification type


f % f % f % f % f % f %


Nonsense 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.44 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.39

Approval 9 18.37 12 23.53 18 43.90 19 38.00 16 25.81 74 29.25


External 4 8.16 5 9.80 3 7.32 4 8.00 1 1.61 17 6.72


Mental 14 28.57 8 15.69 5 12.19 9 18.00 18 29.03 54 21.34

Experimental 10 20.41 8 15.68 6 14.63 5 10.00 14 22.58 43 17.00

Appreciative 4 8.16 2 3.92 0 0.00 2 4.00 2 3.23 10 3.95


Modeling 2 4.08 10 19.61 5 12.19 4 8.00 8 12.90 29 11.46


Structural 6 12.24 6 11.76 3 7.32 7 14.00 3 4.84 25 9.88

Total 49 100 51 100 41 100 50 100 62 100 253 100


modeling aspects in Vote 5. Team G adopted the position of believing in the existence of the cloud,while Team H adopted the opposite position.

• Team G: The shape of the electron cloud has been proved by experienced scientists.• Team H: You cannot say this is the right one. The atomic models are changing and there is no

fixed one. As generations advance, opinions and ideas change. New scientists appear and multi-ple models develop.

• Team G: The one we have now is based on the information scientists have currently.• Team H: Some scientists seek to be famous. It could be that the scientist who designed this elec-

tron cloud model was cheating (with the data).• Team G: Scientists usually make sure that the information is accurate. They are known people

and they have dignity. The equipment is advanced now and this is why scientists were able toperceive the electron cloud.

• Team H: See! This is why we cannot be sure that this is the right model. We are still waiting fornew advanced equipment and new facts about the atom that will change the (current) model.

It was noticeable that the dominant conversation during this debating activity was centered on theidea of using advanced equipment, constructing a scientific model, the role of scientists in this regard,and how this affects their mental perception of unobservable constructs. It is hardly surprising thatthe greatest improvement after the debate was seen in the “experimental,” “modeling,” and “mental”aspects.

3.3 | Class C: The sodium chloride crystal model

Based on the data presented in Table 5, the mental aspect was the highest shown by this class andalso in all four classes. In contrast, modeling did not receive any attention from Class C participants.

The following are examples of the students' “mental” justifications:

• If scientists did not imagine it, then we would not find it in books and encyclopedias, and wewould not know about electrons.

• Students do not have the type of imagination necessary to imagine the crystal.• Through imagination we can imagine the crystal and move into the unseen world.

3.3.1 | Development of students' justifications as they progressed through different learning activities inClass C

While both the experimental and external aspects increased after Group Discussion I, the mental,appreciative, and structural aspects decreased. Group Discussion II seemed mostly to affect themental, external, and structural aspects. While the mental and external aspects increased, the struc-tural level decreased. However, the debate affected the external and structural aspects differently.The external aspect sharply decreased after the debate, while the structural orientation achieved agood gain. The following excerpt, which was taken from the debating activity in Class C, reveals afocus on the structural orientation of the sodium crystal model. Debating Team I adopted the posi-tion that the crystal existed, while Team J adopted the opposite position that the crystal did notexist.


• Team I: The crystal is composed of sodium ions and chloride ions. When we studied rocks, welearned that they were crystals that formed under high pressure and temperature. Why cannot webelieve the crystals exist in salts too?

• Team J: There is no evidence that salts become like crystals. They could have other structures.Why a crystal shape?

• Team I: The difference in charges between sodium and chloride makes them attract each other.They bond to each other. Then, other sodium and chloride ions join to make the crystal shape.

• Team J: Salt ions dissociate quickly when salt dissolves in water. This is evidence that they donot connect to each other like crystal.

• Team I: When salt dissolves, its properties change because it reacts with water. This is why itbecomes easy to dissociate.

This could explain why participants' justifications shifted to “structural” in Vote 5 after thedebate.

3.4 | Class D: The sodium chloride crystal model

Table 6 illustrates Class D data regarding participants' positions with respect to the sodium chloridecrystal model.

Based on these data, the experimental aspect was the highest in this class and also in all four clas-ses. Conversely, the appreciative and modeling aspects were low. The following are examples of theexperimental aspect responses that this class gave:

• After different experiments, this image (of the crystal) appeared to scientists.• They (scientists) start with imagination. Then they prove it through many experiments and tests.• If the crystal exists, then we need powerful microscopes to see it.

TABLE 5 Frequencies and percentages of types of participants' justifications of their positions regarding sodium chloridecrystal in Class C (n = 28)

Justification type


f % f % f % f % f % f %


Nonsense 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Approval 8 17.78 11 24.44 16 33.33 14 20.90 12 21.82 61 23.46


External 1 2.22 7 15.56 4 8.33 16 23.88 3 5.45 31 11.92


Mental 19 42.22 13 28.89 3 6.25 10 14.92 12 21.82 57 21.92

Experimental 4 8.89 9 20.00 10 20.83 16 23.88 13 23.64 52 20.00

Appreciative 4 8.89 2 4.44 3 6.25 4 5.97 3 5.45 16 6.15


Modeling 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00


Structural 9 20.00 3 6.67 12 25.00 7 10.45 12 21.82 43 16.54

Total 45 100 45 100 48 100 67 100 55 100 260 100


3.4.1 | Development of students' justifications as they progressed through different learning activities inClass D

Group Discussion I seemed to show an increase in the mental, experimental, and external aspects. Nomodeling responses appeared after this discussion and the structural aspect decreased. Group Discus-sion II had the same positive effect on the experimental and external aspects. However, it negativelyaffected the structural aspect sharply. The debate activity resulted in a noticeable increase in the men-tal aspect and a decrease in the external aspect.

The sodium chloride crystal model debate in Class D comprised two teams. The position of oneteam (Team K) was that the crystal is very small, and thus it would be difficult to see or imagine it; itmight not exist. The other team's position (Team L) was that the crystal existed. The followingexcerpt is from the conversation that took place between the two teams:

• Team K: The crystal cannot be seen or imagined because it is very small.• Team L: Since you said it is small, then this is evidence it exists … Scientists proved it after

inventing modern instruments.• Team K: What are the instruments that help us see the crystal?• Team L: There are different instruments that help scientists see small things, such as the electron

microscope.• Team K: The electron microscope helps us see real things that exist in reality, such as a cell, not

an imaginary thing that does not exist.• Team L: Scientists know this matter better. They do not give wrong information.• Team K: We do not doubt the credibility of the scientists. But we are saying that the crystal is a

mere mental perception of the scientists and not a real thing.• Team L: Scientists reached this conclusion after a series of investigations, readings, and experi-

ments. They used experiments to confirm their imagination.

Afterwards, the class took Vote 5 and it seemed that the imaginary ideas of constructing the crys-tal model were more convincing than the other ideas discussed during the debate. Thus, the greatestchange happened to the “mental” aspect.

TABLE 6 Frequencies and percentages of types of participants' justifications of their positions regarding the sodium chloridecrystal model in Class D (n = 34)

Justification type


f % f % f % f % f % f %


Nonsense 0 0.00 1 1.49 0 0.00 2 3.12 1 1.39 4 1.20

Approval 13 24.07 11 16.42 30 40.00 13 20.31 13 18.06 80 24.10


External 3 5.56 6 8.95 7 9.33 10 15.62 3 4.17 29 8.73


Mental 13 24.07 21 31.34 9 12.00 8 12.50 15 20.83 66 19.88

Experimental 10 18.52 19 28.36 15 20.00 27 42.19 31 43.06 102 30.73

Appreciative 3 5.56 2 2.98 2 2.67 0 0.00 4 5.56 11 3.31


Modeling 3 5.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.56 1 1.39 5 1.51


Structural 9 16.67 7 10.45 12 16.00 3 4.69 4 5.56 35 10.54

Total 54 100 67 100 75 100 64 100 72 100 332 100


The findings of the current article show that eight types of justification that Grade 10 studentsproposed for their positions regarding the two theoretical scientific constructs. The following sectionsdiscuss how students' justifications were shaped after each learning activity.

3.5 | Group discussion I

Participants' justifications in three of the classes (electron cloud Class A, and sodium chloride crystalClasses C and D) progressed similarly after Group Discussion I. Participants' attention shifted awayfrom the construct. External factors and paying less attention to structural orientation were evident inthese classes after Group Discussion I. In addition, these classes focused on the experimental aspect.Participants focused more on the mental aspect in two classes (electron cloud Class A and sodiumchloride crystal Class D). In contrast, participants' individual justifications in electron cloud Class Bfocused on the modeling aspect after Group Discussion I. On inspecting the groups' worksheets com-pleted during Group Discussion I, we noticed that shifts resulted from the discussions that took placeduring the learning activity. For instance, experimental and mental justifications appeared in the dis-cussion sheets of all seven groups in sodium chloride crystal Class D, which had the greatest increasein Vote 2 regarding these two aspects. In contrast, three out of five small groups in electron cloudClass B stated justifications related to modeling. Afterwards, many participants' individual justifica-tions in this class shifted to modeling during Vote 2.

3.6 | Group discussion II

Participants' justifications progressed in a similar pattern after Group Discussion II as after GroupDiscussion I. After Group Discussion II, participants' attention shifted away from the construct understudy in three classes (electron cloud Class A, and sodium chloride crystal Classes C and D). Theexternal aspect increased and the focus on the structural aspect decreased sharply in these three clas-ses. The discussion also seemed to impact the mental aspect (electron cloud Classes A and B, andsodium chloride crystal Class C) as that category increased. On inspecting the group's worksheetscompleted during Group Discussion II, we noticed that shifts resulted from the discussions that tookplace during the active learning activity. For instance, participants in all groups in crystal Class Cfocused on different mental justifications, such as “students do not have the ability to imagine thecrystal” and “students' imagination is limited, while scientists' imagination is broad.” Their Vote2 results showed a noticeable increment in the mental aspect.

3.7 | Debating activity

Participants' attention after the whole-class debating activity focused on the construct itself and therewas less focus on the external aspects in all four classes. There was a noticeable drop in the externalaspect in all classes. The focus of the participants shifted after this debating activity in two classes(electron cloud Class A and crystal Class C) toward the structural orientation of the two constructs.The focus of the other two classes (electron cloud Class B and Class D) was on the mental aspect. Inaddition, one class (electron cloud Class B) not only shifted away from an external focus toward themental aspect, but also shifted from the structural orientation toward the mental aspect.

4 | DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The main purpose of the study was to explore students' justifications for their positions regarding two the-oretical scientific models, either the electron cloud or sodium chloride crystal, in the context of engaging


in different active learning class activities. A number of participants' justifications and the way in whichthey described their beliefs about theoretical submicroscopic constructs in science are echoed in previouspublished research. For instance, participants' acceptance that the cloud model is necessary to hold theelectrons reflects a tendency to attribute concrete features to a highly abstract model like the electroncloud; is a type of belief that has been recorded by Harrison and Treagust (2000a). This focus on the sur-face features of an abstract model was also apparent when participants discussed the sodium chloride crys-tal and defended the argument that sodium chloride was not crystal-like because it dissociated in watereasily. This macroscopic line of thinking and focusing on the surface features of abstract models has beenobserved previously (Barak & Hussein-Farraj, 2013; Snir et al., 2003; Won et al., 2014; Zhang et al.,2006). Students tend to use everyday explanations to defend their claims (Sampson, Grooms, & Walker,2011). In our study, students used the “star in the sky metaphor” to justify the argument that the electroncloud is not needed to hold the electrons in the atom. Also, our participants behaved like the learners stud-ied by previous researchers when they produced explanations that involved external factors (e.g., theteacher, religion, and media), and omitted to use scientific models and theories. For instance, Sampsonet al. (2011) observed that students did not use scientific laws, models or theories to support their explana-tions or critique other groups' explanations.

In addition, in searching for explanations for the findings of our study, we find the following con-clusions by other researchers as valid reasons for our participants' naïve justifications. First, studentsfind abstract models challenging and confusing, and young learners have limited abstract reasoningability (Harrison & Treagust, 2000a). The two highly abstract models discussed in this study pre-sented significant cognitive demands for the participants (Nichols et al., 2012; Won et al., 2014),which resulted in some participants' doubt concerning the credibility of these models (Hsu & Yang,2007). Second, students lack fundamental understanding of the explanatory, testable, and predictablefeatures of scientific models (Schwarz & White, 2005; Treagust et al., 2004). Third, students do nothave sufficient opportunities to use scientific theories, models, and laws for explanation throughoutthe course of science instruction (Sampson et al., 2011).

It was also observed in all four classes that students' judgments were reshaped after each learningactivity. In this study, the scientific models provided a means of interaction among students whenthey discussed their respective representations. The models provided a shared interactive space thatfacilitated communication. These findings are corroborated by previous research (Stylianou, 2011).In addition, the study provides evidence that supports another claim of previous research (Harrison &Treagust, 2000a; Louca & Zacharia, 2012; Nichols et al., 2012, 2013; Prain et al., 2009), namely thatnegotiating the features of scientific models within different active learning activities in the classleads to changes in students' understanding and perceptions. Different collaborative interactionshelped the participants to use the language to cope with the requirements of particular discussionquestions. The language became a medium through which to express their abstract thinking (Espinetet al., 2012). This cognitive vessel enabled the participants in the study to communicate their varyingexperiences and cope with the different cognitive demands of the learning activities.

Also, the types of justification given by the participants in the study could be regarded as “meta-knowledge” of scientific models and their representations. Previous studies (Pluta et al., 2011;Schwarz & White, 2005; Snir et al., 2003) have pointed out that this type of knowledge is enhancedwhen students negotiate and evaluate scientific models. Some elements of metaknowledge concern-ing scientific models emerged during the course of this study. These were judging whether modelsrepresented reality or scientists' visualization of reality, stating models' limitations, considering multi-ple models to explain the same phenomenon, and how models were discarded (Fortus et al., 2016;Schwarz & White, 2005).


Furthermore, the theoretical scientific models used in the study set the ground for an interesting inter-action between different types of active learning activities and students' perceptions. The design of thestudy enabled better understanding of the development of students' perceptions and metaknowledge dur-ing classroom interactions—a research goal sought by different researchers and inspired by Lev Vygotsky(Stylianou, 2011). Previous research has indicated that active learning processes, such as debating andclass discussions, can enhance the development of powerful knowledge-building communities (Plutaet al., 2011). However, the study indicates that students' perceptions regarding scientific models did notdevelop similarly after different types of active learning activities. The patterns detected in three out offour classes participating in the study showed that learners' attention seemed to shift away from the scien-tific construct after group discussion activities to focus on external factors, such as the teacher, textbook,religion, and media. In contrast, learners' attention seemed to shift toward the construct itself after thedebating activity, focusing on its structural orientation and its function as a scientific model. This findingopens the door for further research regarding changes in students' patterns of thinking, conceptualizations,argumentation, and modeling after engaging in different types of learning activities. Further research isalso needed to explore the potential role of debating in promoting positive conceptual change.

Previous research has shown that interacting with peers and engaging in active learning activitiesare critical for the development of different cognitive modeling practices, such as developing, revis-ing, and evaluating models (Pluta et al., 2011). The findings of the study indicate that different activelearning activities exerted different cognitive demands on participants. The debating activity refo-cused participants' attention on the submicroscopic structural orientation of scientific models—thefavorite and recommended language of different chemistry education researchers (Al-Balushi &Al-Harthy, 2015; Milenkovi�c, Segedinac, & Hrin, 2014; Prilliman, 2014; Treagust & Chandrasegaran,2009; Warfa, Roehrig, Schneider, & Nyachwaya, 2014). This was evident in the discussions duringthe debating activity and then in individual students' written responses after the conclusion of thedebating activity. Previous research shows that there is a correlation between individual student writ-ten argument and group oral argument during argumentation activities (Walker & Sampson, 2013).This might be attributed to the opportunities provided by the debating activity to negotiate and co-construct shared understanding among peers, empowered by their motivation (Nichols et al., 2013;Stylianou, 2011), something we observed while participants were highly engaged during the debatingactivity compared to normal group discussions. Indeed, involving students in argumentation leads tobetter quality of their arguments (Walker & Sampson, 2013), and the presence of an audience, as isthe case for the debating activity, motivates students to produce convincing and deep arguments(Berland & McNeill, 2010). Also, the persuasive and dominant rhetoric role of some participantsin the debating teams was apparent in our study and could contribute, as suggested by Southerland,Kittleson, Settlage, and Lanie (2005), to the process of meaning making within student groups.Southerland et al. (2005) argue that rhetorical moves of the speakers within teams, especially theevaluative comments, play a more significant role in shaping meaning making than the empiricalvalidity of an explanation itself.

The cognitive demand of the debating activity might also be related to the ability to push partici-pants to their “zone of proximal development,” enabling students to reach a higher achievement levelwith assistance than they could without it (Ash, 2004). We suggest that the debating activity providedparticipants with the required assistance to a greater extent than small-group discussion. The amountof argumentation involved in the debating activity could have played a role in focusing students' think-ing on the abstract structural properties of the two theoretical constructs of the study. Previous researchhas suggested that when students are engaged in argument-based activities, they become more ableto elaborate their scientific explanations at relatively high levels of abstraction (von Aufschnaiter,


Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008). Our participants tended during the debating activity to standfirmly with their opinion and “fight” verbally to support their claims. It might be plausible to assumethat such high motivation encouraged participants to pay more attention to the submicroscopic con-struct under study and focus more on its properties when defending their claims. This explanationis supported partially by previous research, which has indicated that student groups tend to focus nar-rowly on a way of proving that their stance is correct when engaged in argumentation, and do not con-sider a wider range of ideas (Sampson et al., 2011).

Although similarities had been detected among the four classes that participated in the study,these classes exhibited some differences in terms of the weight of the emerged justifications for theirpositions regarding the two theoretical constructs under study. One possible explanation is the factthat different teachers may have employed slightly different pedagogical approaches as they enactedthe small-group and whole-class discussions. These pedagogical differences may have had an impacton the outcomes. However, this is realistic in that all teachers have different characteristics, so thedata provide a realistic picture of what outcomes may occur.

Furthermore, the cross-class differences suggest that students sometimes in these four classes inter-acted with the topics of discussions during the learning activities differently. The assertion of Southerlandet al. (2005) on the role of persuasive discourse in guiding students' line of thinking could explain cross-class differences that have been reported by the current study. Ideas for justifications, which were sug-gested by this student or that, might guide the line of thinking of the small group or the whole class inone way or another, shifting their focus to a completely new type of justifications. This phenomenon ofdifferent emerged cross-class patterns of engagement with topics of study was also reported by Berlandand Reiser (2011) who explored the argumentative discussions within two middle school science class-rooms. These researchers concluded that students in their study were influenced more by the type of argu-mentative dialogue that were dominant in the class than their reasoning abilities.

Additionally, participants' understanding of the concept under study could contribute to the cross-classdifferences. Grooms, Sampson, and Enderle (2018) conclude that content familiarity impacts students'engagement in scientific argumentation and there is a potential relationship between students' contentfamiliarity and their ability to engage in productive social activities. As we did not measure participants'comprehension of the constructs understudy before the start of the study, the four classes might start thestudy with different levels of content comprehension. Another explanation for cross-class differencescould be students' argumentation skills that they had before the study. This explanation is supported bythe findings of the study of Grooms et al. (2018) which show that students' past experience with scientificargumentation affect their participation in scientific argumentation.

5 | LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH

One limitation of the study was the nature of the debating activity, which divided students into simu-lated teams in terms of their positions. These positions were not necessarily the real positions of theparticipants. Forcing students to adopt a position, albeit a temporary one, could have influenced theoutcome of the study. Nevertheless, the researchers did not feel that the findings were greatly influ-enced by this aspect and may have helped them to think more deeply about an alternative idea thatthey possessed. The participants generated their argued responses during the debate based on theirdifferent experiences, backgrounds, and cognitive abilities. Debating was used as a vehicle to makethese hidden characteristics visible. Each student was asked at the end of the debating activity towrite down her personal position regarding the scientific construct under study, whether this positionmatched her team's position or not.


Another limitation of the study is the population of students. For the reasons explained in theSection 2, all the participants were female and therefore representative of one gender only. In addi-tion, these young Omani women are high achievers compared to male students (Osman, Al Bar-wani, & Al Mekhlafi, 2015), and are therefore not representative of a wide variation in ability levels.However, as researchers, we find that female students take participation in research studies more seri-ously, and therefore, richer data are more often obtained from studies done with female students.Nonetheless, this limitation suggest the value of conducting a follow-up study with a male or mixedgender sample that might result in alternative perspectives.

Based on the outcomes of the study, science teachers are encouraged to use debating activitiesmore often. The quality of students' thinking seemed to improve after engagement in this type ofactive learning activity. Another recommendation for science teachers is to allow more opportunitiesfor students to interact with scientific models. The participants' responses indicated that they inter-acted with scientific models superficially in textbooks, classes, and through the television. However,active interaction in evaluating, revising, and selecting the best fit is needed (Pluta et al., 2011). Stu-dents are not typically given the opportunity to work with models. Modeling activities could includechoosing the best model to represent a phenomenon, evaluating different models, designing theirown criteria to evaluate models, constructing their own models of some natural phenomena, interact-ing with multiple representations of the same model, and testing their alignment with empirical dataand observations. Research shows that when they are given this opportunity to experience metacon-ceptualization practices, students become more able to construct a proper understanding of models,they become sensitive to the tentative nature of models, they comprehend that models are estimatesof the real world, and they further comprehend the integration of multiple representations of the samephenomenon to construct a complete understanding of it. Moreover, students understand that it is notnecessary for models to compete against each other (Louca et al., 2011; Pluta et al., 2011; Schwarzet al., 2009; Schwarz & White, 2005; Snir et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2006).

One of the main findings of the study is that students' line of thinking with regard to theoretical sub-microscopic constructs progressed differently after each type of learning activity. This finding opens thedoor for further research regarding the impact of different types of learning activities on students' ways ofthinking, conceptualizations, mental models, and perceptions of a wider range of scientific concepts. Suchresearch would move researchers' understanding forward as little is known of the influence of differenttypes of active learning strategies on individuals' lines of thinking when studying science. In addition,since students' attention during the debating activity shifted more to the structural orientation of the theo-retical constructs under study, further research is needed to explore the potential role of using debating inpromoting positive conceptual change with respect to theoretical and submicroscopic constructs of sci-ence; one of the most challenging aspects of science as classified by science researchers (Gunnarsson,Hellquist, Stromdahl, & Zelic, 2018; Ozmen, 2013; Snir et al., 2003). Such research would enableresearchers to explore the cognitive demands of a set of different active learning activities, such as smalldiscussion groups, debating activities, collaborative practical work, and field trips. The data collectedcould then be collapsed according to different variables, such as age, gender, and types of concepts understudy. Furthermore, this suggested research setting would be an appropriate design to test the assumptionby Sampson et al. (2011) that encouraging student groups, involved in scientific argumentation, to usetheories, laws, and models to support their claims and critique opposing claims facilitates the integrationof scientific ideas voluntarily in students' statements.

ORCID

Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4080-1203


https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4080-1203

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4080-1203

REFERENCES

Al-Balushi, S. M. (2009). Factors influencing pre-service science teachers' imagination at the microscopic level in chemistry. Interna-tional Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1089–1110.

Al-Balushi, S. M. (2011). Students' evaluation of the credibility of scientific models that represent natural entities and phenomena.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 571–601.

Al-Balushi, S. M. (2013a). The effect of different textual narrations on students’ explanations at the submicroscopic level in chemistry.Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(1), 3–10.

Al-Balushi, S. M. (2013b). The relationship between learners’ distrust of scientific models, their spatial ability, and the vividness oftheir mental images. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 707–732.

Al-Balushi, S. M., & Al-Harthy, S. (2015). Students’ mind wandering in macroscopic and submicroscopic textual narrations and itsrelationship with their reading comprehension. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 680–688.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Ash, D. (2004). Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: The science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the sci-ence. Science Education, 88(6), 855–884.

Barab, S., Hay, K., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(7), 719–756.

Barak, M., & Hussein-Farraj, R. (2013). Integrating model-based learning and animations for enhancing students' understanding of pro-teins structure and function. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9280-7

Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and design-ing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Educa-tion, 95, 191–216.

Cokelez, A. (2012). Junior high school students' ideas about the shape and size of the atom. Research in Science Education, 42(4),673–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9223-8

Coll, R., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.

Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers' conceptions of modelling in science. International Journalof Science Education, 26(11), 1379–1401.

Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Espinet, M., Izquierdo, M., Bonil, J., & Ramos De Robles, S. (2012). The role of language in modeling the natural world: Perspectives

in science education. In B. Frazer, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education(pp. 1385–1403). New York: Springer.

Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., & Rosenfeld, S. (2016). High school students' meta-modeling knowledge. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 787–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9480-z

Fretz, E., Wu, H., Zhang, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modelingpractices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567–589.

Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2010). Conceptual incoherence as a result of the use of multiple historical models in school textbooks.Research in Science Education, 40(4), 605–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9136-y

Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Enderle, P. (2018). How concept familiarity and experience with scientific argumentation are related tothe way groups participate in an episode of argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1264–1286.

Gunnarsson, R., Hellquist, B., Stromdahl, H., & Zelic, D. (2018). Secondary school science teachers' arguments for the particulatenature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(4), 503–525.

Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16(7–8), 653–697.Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000a). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use

in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352–381.Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000b). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9),

1011–1026.Hart, C. (2008). Models in physics, models for physics learning, and why the distinction may matter in the case of electric circuits.

Research in Science Education, 38(5), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9060-yHsu, P. H., & Yang, W. G. (2007). Print and image integration of science texts and reading comprehension: A systemic functional lin-

guistics perspective. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 5(4), 639–659.Jin, H., Mehl, C., & Lan, D. (2015). Developing an analytical framework for argumentation on energy consumption issues. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 52(8), 1132–1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21237Krell, M., Belzen, A., & Krüger, D. (2014). Students' levels of understanding models and modelling in biology: Global or aspect-

dependent? Research in Science Education, 44(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9365-yLederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and

meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.Louca, L., & Zacharia, Z. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and episte-

mological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471–492.


https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9280-7

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9223-8

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9480-z

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9136-y

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9060-y

https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21237

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9365-y

Louca, L., Zacharia, Z., & Constantinou, C. (2011). In quest of productive modeling-based learning discourse in elementary school sci-ence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 919–951.

Maher, P. (1990, January). Acceptance without belief. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Asso-ciation (pp. 381–392). Minneapolis, MN: Philosophy of Science Association.

Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83(1), 33–54.Milenkovi�c, D., Segedinac, M., & Hrin, T. (2014). Increasing high school students' chemistry performance and reducing cognitive load

through an instructional strategy based on the interaction of multiple levels of knowledge representation. Journal of Chemical Edu-cation, 91(9), 1409–1416.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC:

National Academies Press.National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press.NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press Avail-

able online at: https://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-sciencestandardsNichols, K., Hanan, J., & Ranasinghe, M. (2013). Transforming the social practices of learning with representations: A study of disci-

plinary discourse. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9263-0Nichols, K., Ranasinghe, M., & Hanan, J. (2012). Translating between representations in a social context: A study of under-

graduate science students' representational fluency. Instructional Science, 41(4), 699–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9253-2

Osman, M., Al Barwani, T., & Al Mekhlafi, A. (2015). The male dilemma: Patterns of gender disparity in academic performance inOman. Global Journal for Research Analysis, 4(10), 39–42.

Ozmen, H. (2013). A cross-national review of the studies on the particulate nature of matter and related concepts. International Journalof physics and chemistry Education, 5(2), 81–110.

Pluta, W., Chinn, C., & Duncan, R. (2011). Learners' epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 48(5), 486–511.

Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 31(6), 787–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701824249

Prilliman, S. (2014). Integrating particulate representations into AP chemistry and introductory chemistry courses. Journal of ChemicalEducation, 91(9), 1291–1298.

Russell, T., Longden, K., & McGuigan, L. (1991). Materials: Primary SPACE project research report. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool Uni-versity Press.

Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientificargumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.

Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., … Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progressionfor scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing, 46(6), 632–654.

Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cogni-tion & Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (2007). From conceptual change to transformative modeling: A case study of an elementary teacher in learningastronomy. Science Education, 91(6), 948–966.

Sinsa, P., Savelsbergha, E., van Joolingenb, W., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2009). The relation between students' epistemological under-standing of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modelling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1205–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802192181

Skamp, K. (2004). Our place in space. In K. Skamp (Ed.), Teaching primary science constructively (pp. 392–435). Southbank, Victo-ria: Thomson Learning Australia.

Snir, J., Smith, C., & Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing studentsto the particulate model of matter. Science Education, 87(6), 794–830. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10069

Southerland, S., Kittleson, J., Settlage, J., & Lanie, K. (2005). Individual and group meaning-making in an urban third grade classroom:Red fog, cold cans, and seeping vapor. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 1032–1061.

Stylianou, D. (2011). An examination of middle school students' representation practices in mathematical problem solving through thelens of expert work: Towards an organizing scheme. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(3), 265–289.

Tandogan, R. O., & Orhan, A. (2007). The effects of problem-based active learning in science education on students' aca-demic achievement, attitude and concept learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 71–81.

Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. (2009). The efficacy of an alternative instructional programme designed to enhance secondarystudents' competence in the triplet relationship. In J. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical educa-tion, models and modeling in science education (Vol. 4, pp. 151–168). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.


http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-sciencestandards

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9263-0

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9253-2

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9253-2

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701824249

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802192181

https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10069

Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2004). Students' understanding of the descriptive and predictive nature ofteaching models in organic chemistry. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 1–20.

Trier, U., Krüger, D., & Upmeier zu Belzen, A. (2014). Students' versus scientists' conceptions of models and modelling. InD. Krüger & M. Ekborg (Eds.), Research in biological education (pp. 103–115). Berlin, Germany: Westermann Available onlineat: http://www.bcp.fuberlin.de/biologie/arbeitsgruppen/didaktik/eridob_2012/eridob_proceeding/7-Students_Versus.pdf?1389177503

van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. New York: Oxford University Press.von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how stu-

dents' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.Walker, J., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate

chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 50(5), 561–596.

Warfa, A., Roehrig, G., Schneider, J., & Nyachwaya, J. (2014). Role of teacher-initiated discourses in students' development of repre-sentational fluency in chemistry: A case study. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(6), 784–792.

Won, M., Yoon, H., & Treagust, D. F. (2014). Students' learning strategies with multiple representations: Explanations of the humanbreathing mechanism. Science Education, 98(5), 840–866.

Zhang, B., Liu, X., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Expert models and modeling processes associated with a computer-modeling tool. ScienceEducation, 90(4), 579–604.

How to cite this article: Al-Balushi SM, Martin-Hansen L. The development of students' jus-tifications for their positions regarding two theoretical models: Electron cloud or sodium chlo-ride crystal—After engaging in different learning activities. J Res Sci Teach. 2019;56:1011–1036. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21535


http://www.bcp.fuberlin.de/biologie/arbeitsgruppen/didaktik/eridob_2012/eridob_proceeding/7-Students_Versus.pdf?1389177503

https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21535

the development of students’ justifications for their positions...

Documents