Agenda

A theory of epistemic design theory includes both (a) a normative model of epistemic competence and (b) an instructional theory of how to promote this competence through effective design.  In this talk, I will present an overview of a theory of epistemic design that I have been developing in collaboration with my colleagues (including Ravit Golan Duncan, Sarit Barzilai, Ron Rinehart, Ala Samarapungavan, Luke Buckland, William Pluta, and Gale Sinatra).  Much of this research has been situated in the context of middle-school life science classes focused on model-based inquiry. I will discuss implications of our work in middle-school classes for a theory of epistemic design, including potential extensions to STEM education at the college level.

I will begin by discussing the goals of epistemic design, and then turn to the issue of what design features can achieve these goals. The theoretical framework that guides our theory of epistemic design theory is the AIR model of epistemic cognition, which views epistemic cognition as comprising Aims, Ideals (or standards), and Reliable Processes for achieving epistemic aims. I will discuss the AIR framework and explain how we have used it in epistemic design, using data from our research project to support critical design recommendations. 

A well-structured explanation of cellular processes coordinates reasoning about the mechanisms with visual, symbolic, and data representations. Since students have problems both understanding biomolecular mechanisms depicted by representations and how to competently explain them, we decided to simultaneously address both types of difficulties through a hybrid model composing a combination of the key elements of two different established expert models, the Methods-Analogies-Context-How (MACH) and Concept-Reasoning-Mode of representation (CRM) models. The MACH model represents the key components of biology expert explanations of mechanisms, while the CRM model depicts the factors affecting a person’s ability to interpret representations. In this presentation, in collaboration with Nancy Pelaez and Kamali Sripathi, I will demonstrate how this hybrid model can be used as a guiding framework for the design of instruction about the mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation in a biochemistry class. I will also demonstrate with qualitative data how the hybrid model can be used to identify and code for various elements of instructor explanations and ways of reasoning. A future goal is to use the hybrid model to inform the design of student activities and assessments aimed at developing expert-like explanatory and reasoning skills to do with biomolecular processes and their mechanisms.

By scientific modeling, I refer to a practice of embodying ideas of how and why a system works or a phenomenon occurs into a model, testing and evaluating the model, and revising the model to explain and predict the world. Yet engaging learners in scientific modeling can be challenging for a number of reasons, and the outcomes of larger scale implementations of various forms of model-based instruction is not always well-understood. This talk will share approaches and findings from scientific modeling research in which I have engaged over the past twenty year. The context of that research ranges from elementary school modeling of the hydrological cycle, to upper elementary and middle school work on the particle nature of matter and force and motion, to introductory college-level biology. In particular, I will highlight (a) the nature of scientific modeling in these contexts, (b) research findings and outcomes of engaging learners in modeling, (c) indicators of productive designs and support for learners and their instructors, and (d) implications for modeling across the spectrum of learning.

These were the two research questions that informed our four year ethnographic studies of two university bioengineering research laboratories—a tissue engineering and a neuroengineering lab. While the work and objectives for these labs were in no way related, we found similarities in their modeling practices and in their efforts to bridge the ­in vivo/in vitro divide. This talk will focus on two ­in vitro model systems, one from each lab, that were central to their work, with a particular emphasis on the coordination and integration of biological and engineering models needed to design, fabricate and use these devices. I will end with implications for education.

A theory of epistemic design theory includes both (a) a normative model of epistemic competence and (b) an instructional theory of how to promote this competence through effective design.  In this talk, I will present an overview of a theory of epistemic design that I have been developing in collaboration with my colleagues (including Ravit Golan Duncan, Sarit Barzilai, Ron Rinehart, Ala Samarapungavan, Luke Buckland, William Pluta, and Gale Sinatra).  Much of this research has been situated in the context of middle-school life science classes focused on model-based inquiry. I will discuss implications of our work in middle-school classes for a theory of epistemic design, including potential extensions to STEM education at the college level.

I will begin by discussing the goals of epistemic design, and then turn to the issue of what design features can achieve these goals. The theoretical framework that guides our theory of epistemic design theory is the AIR model of epistemic cognition, which views epistemic cognition as comprising Aims, Ideals (or standards), and Reliable Processes for achieving epistemic aims. I will discuss the AIR framework and explain how we have used it in epistemic design, using data from our research project to support critical design recommendations. 

A well-structured explanation of cellular processes coordinates reasoning about the mechanisms with visual, symbolic, and data representations. Since students have problems both understanding biomolecular mechanisms depicted by representations and how to competently explain them, we decided to simultaneously address both types of difficulties through a hybrid model composing a combination of the key elements of two different established expert models, the Methods-Analogies-Context-How (MACH) and Concept-Reasoning-Mode of representation (CRM) models. The MACH model represents the key components of biology expert explanations of mechanisms, while the CRM model depicts the factors affecting a person’s ability to interpret representations. In this presentation, in collaboration with Nancy Pelaez and Kamali Sripathi, I will demonstrate how this hybrid model can be used as a guiding framework for the design of instruction about the mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation in a biochemistry class. I will also demonstrate with qualitative data how the hybrid model can be used to identify and code for various elements of instructor explanations and ways of reasoning. A future goal is to use the hybrid model to inform the design of student activities and assessments aimed at developing expert-like explanatory and reasoning skills to do with biomolecular processes and their mechanisms.

These were the two research questions that informed our four year ethnographic studies of two university bioengineering research laboratories—a tissue engineering and a neuroengineering lab. While the work and objectives for these labs were in no way related, we found similarities in their modeling practices and in their efforts to bridge the ­in vivo/in vitro divide. This talk will focus on two ­in vitro model systems, one from each lab, that were central to their work, with a particular emphasis on the coordination and integration of biological and engineering models needed to design, fabricate and use these devices. I will end with implications for education.

A theory of epistemic design theory includes both (a) a normative model of epistemic competence and (b) an instructional theory of how to promote this competence through effective design.  In this talk, I will present an overview of a theory of epistemic design that I have been developing in collaboration with my colleagues (including Ravit Golan Duncan, Sarit Barzilai, Ron Rinehart, Ala Samarapungavan, Luke Buckland, William Pluta, and Gale Sinatra).  Much of this research has been situated in the context of middle-school life science classes focused on model-based inquiry. I will discuss implications of our work in middle-school classes for a theory of epistemic design, including potential extensions to STEM education at the college level.

I will begin by discussing the goals of epistemic design, and then turn to the issue of what design features can achieve these goals. The theoretical framework that guides our theory of epistemic design theory is the AIR model of epistemic cognition, which views epistemic cognition as comprising Aims, Ideals (or standards), and Reliable Processes for achieving epistemic aims. I will discuss the AIR framework and explain how we have used it in epistemic design, using data from our research project to support critical design recommendations. 

These were the two research questions that informed our four year ethnographic studies of two university bioengineering research laboratories—a tissue engineering and a neuroengineering lab. While the work and objectives for these labs were in no way related, we found similarities in their modeling practices and in their efforts to bridge the ­in vivo/in vitro divide. This talk will focus on two ­in vitro model systems, one from each lab, that were central to their work, with a particular emphasis on the coordination and integration of biological and engineering models needed to design, fabricate and use these devices. I will end with implications for education.