Research Article

Turkish and American science teachers’ perceptions about science models and modelling

Kathy L. Malone 1 2 * , Özkan Yılmaz 3
More Detail
1 University of Hawai’i at Hilo, Hilo, HI, USA2 Nazarbayev University, Astana, KAZAKHSTAN3 Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, TURKEY* Corresponding Author
Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 3(1), June 2023, 33-42,
Published: 12 March 2023
OPEN ACCESS   70 Views   39 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


The need for authentic practices such as science modelling in school science has been shown through international assessment scores. Numbers of studies have shown the efficacy of the use of modelling on students’ conceptual knowledge and reasoning abilities. However, the international assessment scores have not risen greatly in most countries. Thus, the question becomes are students being taught modelling practices in schools. Research implies that teachers, both pre- and in-service, may lack the expertise to guide students in the usage of models and modelling. This study compares the perceptions of models and modelling in two countries, the US and Turkey, using a qualitative interview research design to determine what differences exist between teachers’ perceptions in these two countries since the US scores higher than Turkey on international assessments. The results show that there are few differences in teachers’ perceptions of models and modelling between these two countries. The paper concludes with suggestions that are pertinent to science educators in terms of training needs for both pre- and in-service science teachers.


Malone, K. L., & Yılmaz, Ö. (2023). Turkish and American science teachers’ perceptions about science models and modelling. Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 3(1), 33-42.


  1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096-1097.
  2. Bahtaji, M. A. A. (2023). Pre-service science teachers’ emphases and views about science education curriculum. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 919-932.
  3. Berber, N. C., & Guzel, H. (2009). Fen ve matematik öğretmen adaylarının modellerin bilim ve fendeki rolüne ve amacına ilişkin algıları [Science and mathematics teacher candidates’ perceptions of the role and purpose of models in science and science]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi [Selcuk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute], 21, 87-97.
  4. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
  5. de Jong, T., Ainsworth S., Dobson M., van der Hulst A., Levonen J., & Reimann P. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-40). Elsevier.
  6. Dori, Y. J., & Kaberman, Z. (2012). Assessing high school chemistry students’ modeling sub-skills in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Instructional Science, 40, 69-91.
  7. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). Learning electromagnetism with visualizations and active learning. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 198-216). Springer.
  8. Dukerich, L. (2015). Applying modeling instruction to high school chemistry to improve students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1315-1319.
  9. Eymur, G., & Capps, D. K. (2022). A model-based approach to teaching about solutions. Science Activities, 59(3), 135-141.
  10. Giere, R. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science, 71, 742-752.
  11. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115-130.
  12. Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education. Springer.
  13. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Towards a coherent model for macro, submicro and symbolic representations in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 333-350). Springer.
  14. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Pub. Co.
  15. Göhner, M. F., Bielik, T., & Krell, M. (2022). Investigating the dimensions of modeling competence among preservice science teachers: Meta‐modeling knowledge, modeling practice, and modeling product. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(8), 1354-1387.
  16. Göhner, M., & Krell, M. (2020). Preservice science teachers’ strategies in scientific reasoning: The case of modeling. Research in Science Education, 52, 395-414.
  17. Gunes, B., Gulcicek, C., & Bagci, N. (2004). Eğitim fakültelerindeki fen ve matematik öğretim elemanlarının model ve modelleme hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Examining the views of science and mathematics instructors in education faculties about modeling and modelling.]. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Science Education], 1(1), 35-48.
  18. Harbour, K. E., Evanovich, L. L., Sweigart, C. A., & Hughes, L. E. (2015). A brief review of effective teaching practices that maximize student engagement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(1), 5-13.
  19. Harman, G. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarinin model ve modelleme ile ilgili bilgilerinin incelenmesi [Examination of pre-service science teachers’ knowledge about modeling and modelling]. In Proceedings of the 10th National Congress of Science and Mathematics Education.
  20. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352-381.<352::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-J
  21. Heijnes, D., van Joolingen, W., & Leenaars, F. (2018). Stimulating scientific reasoning with drawing-based modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(1), 45-56.
  22. Henze, I., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2007). The change of science teachers’ personal knowledge about teaching models and modeling in the context of science education reform. International Journal of Science Education, 15(3), 1819-1846.
  23. Hestenes, D. (2010). Modeling theory for math and science education. In R. Lesh, C. R. Haines, P. L. Galbraith, & A. Harford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 13-41). Springer.
  24. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
  25. Isik, A., & Mercan, E. (2015). Ortaokul matematik öğretmenlerinin model ve modelleme hakkindaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Examination of secondary school mathematics teachers’ views on modeling and modelling]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi [Kastamonu Journal of Education], 23(4), 1835-1850.
  26. Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2008). Modeling instruction: An effective model for science education. Science Educator, 17(1), 10-17.
  27. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369-1386.
  28. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226.
  29. Krell, M., & Kruger, D. (2016). Testing models: A key aspect to promote teaching activities related to models and modelling in biology lessons? Journal of Biological Education, 50(2), 160-173.
  30. Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Majerich, D. M., Clevenstine. R., & Howanski, R. (2012). The effects of a model-based physics curriculum program with a physics first approach: A causal-comparative study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 114-124.
  31. Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 193-203.
  32. Malone, K. L., Schuchardt, A. M., & Sabree, Z. (2019). Models and modeling in evolution. In U. Harms, & M. J. Reiss (Eds.), Evolution education re-considered: Understanding what works (pp. 207-226). Springer.
  33. Malone, K. L., & Schuchardt, A. (2020). Population growth modelling simulations: Do they affect the scientific reasoning abilities of students?. In Computer Supported Education: 11th International Conference, CSEDU 2019, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 2-4, 2019, Revised Selected Papers 11 (pp. 285-307). Springer International Publishing.
  34. McCullagh, P., Law, B., & Ste-Marie, D. (2012). Modeling and performance. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sport and performance psychology (pp. 250-272). Oxford University Press.
  35. Miller, A. R., & Kastens, K. A. (2017). Investigating the impacts of targeted professional development around models and modeling on teachers’ instructional practice and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 641-663.
  36. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds.) (2016). TIMSS 2015 encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science. Boston College. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
  37. OECD. (2014). What are tertiary students choosing to study? Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing.
  38. OECD. (2016). Low-performing students: Why they fall behind and how to help them succeed, PISA. OECD Publishing.
  39. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204.
  40. Quinn, H., Schweingruber, H., & Keller., T. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
  41. Roslina, Andalia, N., AG, B., & Zulfajri, M. (2020). The student ability in graph understanding for mastering natural science concepts through the process skills approach. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 145-160.
  42. Rost, M., & Knuuttila, T. (2022). Models as epistemic artifacts for scientific reasoning in science education research. Education Sciences, 12(4), 276.
  43. Saleh, S., & Jing, T. A. (2020). Instructional practices in science education in German and Malaysian secondary schools: A comparative case study. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 267-282.
  44. Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing.
  45. Schuchardt, A., Malone, K., Diehl, W., Harless, K., McGinnis, R., & Parr, TD. (2008). A case study of student performance following a switch to a modeling-based physics first course sequence [Paper presentation]. 2008 Annual International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, United States.
  46. Schuchardt, A., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Modeling scientific processes with mathematics equations enhances student qualitative conceptual understanding and quantitative problem solving. Science Education, 100(2), 290-320.
  47. Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K‐8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158-186.
  48. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
  49. Svoboda, J., & Passmore, C. (2013). The strategies of modeling in biology education. Science & Education, 22(1), 119-142.
  50. Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 111-135.
  51. Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Understanding genetics: Analysis of secondary students’ conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 205-235.
  52. van Someren, M.W., Boshuizen, H. P. A., de Jong, T., & Reimann, P. (1998). Introduction. In M.W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 1-5). Pergamon.
  53. Won, M., Yoon, H., & Treagust, D. F. (2014). Students’ learning strategies with multiple representations: Explanations of the human breathing mechanism. Science Education, 98(5), 840-866.
  54. Yenilmez Turkoglu, A., & Oztekin, C. (2016). Science teacher candidates’ perceptions about roles and nature of scientific models. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), 219-236.