ABSTRACT:Modeling is being used in teaching learning science in a number of ways. It will be considered here as a process whereby children of primary school age exercise their capacity of organizing recognizable and manageable forms during their understanding of complex phenomenologies. The aim of this work is to characterize this process in relation to the modeling of properties of and changes in materials. The data are discussed by establishing relationships between the modeling process with three different aspects: the specialized scientific knowledge, the physical manipulation of phenomena, and the interaction among those participating in the class. The results show how 7 -8-year-old students generate a modeling process that leads them to explain the behavior of different materials by using a "model of parts" created ad hoc. This model, built up from some kind of a discrete vision of the material, proves to be coherent for children of this age and evolves by relating the visible continuum with an imagined discontinuum.

When analyzing changes in situations, we necessarily face choices between different cognitive strategies. Particular reference is made to two general ways by which we perceive and rationalize patterns of change: in one case, change is seen as a discrete process; in the other case, it is seen as a continuous process. This topic is discussed in relation to progress and modern trends in biology and physics. The works of Kuhn, Thom, and Prigogine are mentioned and an example illustrating the process of change is taken from the field of biology. The final section of the review discusses the development of children’s understanding of the process of change in physical and biological phenomena.

IntroductionIn this and in a forthcoming contribution to this journal we suggest and outline a discussion pattern about the matching between knowledge production (and evolution) and culture reproduction (and evolution). We believe that it is appropriate to re-examine the basic aspects of science education within a broader cultural ground, in order to channel meaningful problems into meaningful dynamics.We are fully aware of the enormous complexity of the issue and, therefore, feel it more useful to present some hints than to venture directly into firm proposals. These follow quite directly, however, once we accept some premises, and are quite at variance with many established 'up-to-date' practices. We also realize that from several points of view our arguments could be seen as a collection of self-evident, even immaterial comments and statements. However, the urgency for this kind of insight comes from our recognition that cues most affecting our cognitive behaviour (this includes the one we attempt to induce in children and teachers) are often skipped over in planning educational interventions and that test and curriculum proposals often float as divergent over-structures on top of the real and urgent cognitive problems of so many people.We wish to thank those individuals-fellow researchers, teachers, children-whose enlightening open-mindedness in discussions on knowledge and understanding stands at the basis of our study. As our comments tend to provoke readers' reactions on the basis of their knowledge systems, we feel it better not to quote the host of written thoughts one can easily refer to, in order to systematize this approach.

No abstract

No abstract