See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277022130

Model-based inquiry in physics: A buoyant force module

Article  in  Science teacher (Normal, Ill.) · November 2010

CITATIONS READS

7 243

3 authors, including:

Drew Neilson Todd Campbell

Haute Ecole de Santé Vaud University of Connecticut
9 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   505 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

STEM Teaching Tools Supportive of Preservice Teachers, Mentoring Teachers, and University Educators View project

Practicum experiences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Todd Campbell on 23 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Drew Neilson, Todd Campbell,
and Benjamin Allred

odel-based inquiry (MBI) is an emergent

instructional strategy that is gaining accep-
tance among science educators. Oh and Oh
define MBI as a process in which students
develop questions and procedures, carry out experiments,
and make and communicate conclusions in an effort to “ex-
plore phenomena and construct and reconstruct models in
light of the results of scientific investigations” (Forthcom-
ing, p. 22). This approach to learning realistically mirrors
the work of scientists, who develop and test hypotheses to
construct more sophisticated understandings of the natural
world.
This article details how we—a high school physics teacher,
university science teacher educator, and student teacher—
collaboratively taught a high school physics unit using MBI.
In the case study presented here, students are asked to develop
a model that describes buoyancy. With traditional inquiry-
A buoyant force type laboratory work, teachers are often concerned about
module for limited learning and a lack of participation from all students.
MBI helps teachers address these concerns by requiring that
high school students take ownership of their investigations—they make
all the decisions needed to move an experiment from idea
physics classes to practice.

I n t ro d u c t i o n
In MBI, students are asked to create a model that demon-
strates their understanding of a concept (Oh and Oh, forth-
coming; Windschitl, Thompson, and Braaten 2008). This
model serves as the anchor for learning; students rely on it
to guide and shape their scientific inquiries.
Figure 1 outlines a road map for MBI that engages stu-
dents in the three components of this multidirectional cycle:
modeling, focused inquiry, and iterations:

u Through modeling, each student creates diagrams, sup-

ported by written articulations, to demonstrate his or her
understanding of a specified concept.
u Through focused inquiry, students engage in “the pro-
cesses embraced by science that allow us to extract expla-
nation from evidence” (Johnston 2008, p. 12).
u Through iterations, students connect emergent evidence
and explanations to their broader understandings of
the MBI focus, which, in the module presented here, is
buoyancy.

By following the MBI road map in Figure 1, students experi-

ence firsthand a science that “demands and relies on empirical
evidence…[and] is a highly creative endeavor”—both tenets of
the nature of science as described by McComas (2004, p. 24).

38 The Science Teacher

T h e b u oya n c y fo rce m o d u l e level. Without directly relating water displacement to buoyancy,
When our students began this project, they were about this idea—along with the earlier discussion of the upward force
halfway through a year-long conceptual physics class. At exerted by water—offered students a context for beginning
this point in the school year, they had already developed and their study.
demonstrated a general understanding of Newton’s laws and This then led to a discussion about experimental design.
density. (Note: See “On the web” to learn how this buoyant- Students were told that they would be testing two of the factors
force module meets national and state science standards.) they thought affected buoyancy (from their brainstorm models
The seven-day module is described in the following sec- on Day 1), and paired up to outline their experimental design.
tions. Over a year and half, we implemented several adap- They compared their draft models, chose the factors they felt
tations of the MBI module in our high school physics class. were most likely to affect buoyant force, and began to outline
The case study presented in this article is the most recent and a model that incorporated both partners’ ideas. The two fac-
successful variation. tors selected to test in the lab were identified as potential, but
uncertain, influences on the size of a buoyant force.
D ay 1 Students then shared their completed experimental design
Day 1 aligned with the modeling component of the MBI road outlines with the class. This led to a brief discussion of good
map (Figure 1). After reviewing the concept of density, students versus bad designs and science language and vocabulary (e.g.,
were asked to consider why they felt lighter in water than on controls, independent variables, dependent variables, accuracy,
land—and the possible causes for this phenomenon. Because and precision).
of their previous experiences in water and their knowledge of D ay 3
forces, the discussion quickly became focused on the upward
force that water exerts. After some discussion, students were In past implementations of buoyancy MBI modules, students
convinced that the only possible reason for this force was that had trouble identifying an effective mechanism for testing
water must push upward on submerged objects. The students buoyant forces. Therefore, in the case study presented in
and teacher decided this force could be called buoyant force. this article, students were explicitly shown one particular
Next, to clarify the unit’s goals and objectives, students were method. The teacher demonstrated how force probes
given the Buoyancy Model Guidelines and Rubric (Figure 2, could be set up to measure buoyant force (Figure 3, p. 41).
p. 40) and asked to work indi-
vidually on an initial draft of FIGURE 1
their model. They focused on
Road map for model-based inquiry (MBI).
u the cause of the buoyant
force, and Modeling
u any factor they thought Students are asked to create a
might affect the magni- model of what they know about
tude of this force. the MBI focus; this invokes their
prior knowledge. Once students
D ay 2 have shared what they know, they
Days 2–6 aligned with the fo- are then asked to identify what
cused inquiry component of they do NOT know or where their
the MBI road map (Figure 1). understandings might be uncertain
Day 2 started with another, or “shaky.”
more detailed review of den-
sity. Students were asked how
they might find the density of
an irregularly shaped brass Focused inquiry
object. Although finding the The portions of “shaky” uncertainties
Iterations
mass was simple, determining within student models serve as the
After completing investigations,
the volume was not, because focus for inquiry. Students design
students are led to revisit their
of its irregular shape. investigations that allow them to
models to refine, edit, and add to
One student suggested put- collect data that will better inform
them based on conclusions derived
ting the object in water and their understandings and models.
from inquiries.
measuring the change in water

November 2010 39
(Safety note: This allowed for a teacher-led demon- u how experiments would be varied to facilitate data col-
stration and modeling of how to safely use probeware lection and subsequently inform conclusions about the
around or near water and to remind students of lab two factors being tested;
safety expectations [i.e., safety, cleanup, behavior].) Students u the number of trials to be conducted; and
were allowed to suggest and try alternative methods if the u how data would be collected.
approaches were approved by the teacher and supported by
convincing rationale. In essence, students thought through and designed their
Students spent the rest of Day 3 preparing for the start of experiments before actually conducting their labs. This
their experiments (which commenced on Day 4). This time process helped students learn how to prepare for lab work,
was used for planning focus their efforts, and maximize lab time.

u exactly what materials would be used; D ays 4 a n d 5

u the personal protective equipment (e.g., safety glasses or Students spent Days 4 and 5 in the lab completing their ex-
goggles) needed and safety issues to be addressed; periments. During these two days, students stayed engaged

FIGURE 2

Buoyancy model guidelines and rubric.

Although you will be working with a partner to de- Rubric
velop your models, you must turn in your own model.
The model clearly shows the mechanism
This paper is to be turned in with your model and as stated in guideline 1.
will be used as a grading sheet according to the rubric Comment:
provided here. __/20
The force that causes you to feel lighter in water
(or any fluid) is called buoyant force. This is the same The model provides causality as stated in
force that makes it possible for objects to float. You guideline 2.
will create a model that describes buoyancy. Comment:
__/20
Guidelines The model is able to accurately predict
The purpose of this model is to illustrate and explain phenomena as stated in guideline 3.
the concept of buoyancy. Your model should Comment:
__/20
1. show the mechanism (i.e., show what happens
under all plausible circumstances); The model is neat, orderly, and pleasing
2. show causality (i.e., show and explain why some- to the eye. It is apparent that the student
thing happens the way it does); and made a concerted effort to make it look
3. predict phenomena (i.e., predict the behavior and presentable.
outcome of an untested experiment). Comment:
__/20
It may be helpful to design your model with the The model is easy to understand. Someone
following questions in mind: who did not understand buoyancy could
quickly make sense of it and learn from it.
u What factors affect whether something floats or The model is not overly complicated.
sinks? Comment:
u How do these factors affect buoyant force? __/20
u How does the sinking or floating process occur?
The model is refined, added to, or vali-
u What unusual circumstances might exist that need
dated by experimentation.
to be taken into account? Comment:
__/20
(Note: Guidelines are shaped by guidance from
Schwarz et al. [2009]). Total __/120

40 The Science Teacher

 Model-Based Inquiry

and on task. Authentic discussions and problem solving

were evident. FIGURE 3

Student experiment example Force probe set up to measure

buoyant force.
One example of a student experiment is shown in Figure 4
(p. 42). This group used the force probe illustrated in Figure
3 to investigate whether the shape of a submerged object
affects the buoyant force on that object. (Note: Figure 4
shows the group’s final model, which also included its test-
ing of mass. The groups’ model was also informed by other
groups’ tests that were shared with the class [e.g., density

Photo courtesy of the authors

and depth of submersion]).
Wearing safety glasses or goggles, the group first de-
termined the force of three different-shaped objects—by
hanging them on a string that was connected to the force
probe—outside of a container of water. Next, the force of
each object was determined when the object—again hung
on a string connected to the force probe—was submerged
in water, but not touching the container’s floor. The buoyant (Safety note: Given the potential for water spill-
force the water exerted on each object was equal to the dif- age, make sure that any electrical components
ference between the force probe readings of an object outside [e.g., computer] being powered by an electrical
of water versus an object submerged in water. receptacle in the lab are protected by a ground fault
For this particular investigation, students found that if the circuit interrupter.)
submerged objects’ volumes were controlled, a change in the
shape of the object did not result in a change in buoyant force.
Once students removed the confounding variable and
Another student example used only submerged objects, they were able to correctly
Although many groups completed their investigations with discover that mass has no effect on buoyant force.
little to no problems, a few students encountered issues that
offered additional opportunities to learn about science pro- D ay 6
cesses. A common problem occurred with experiments that By the end of Day 5, students had completed their investi-
included floating objects. gations and summarized their individual results. Day 6 be-
For example, one group was trying to determine the gan with each group sharing independent findings with the
effect of an object’s mass on buoyant force. In an attempt class. Based on these findings, a whole-class buoyant force
to control variables, these students made sure that all of concept map was created (Figure 5, p. 43). After reviewing
the objects used in the experiment had the same volume. the completed concept map, students discussed the results
They chose cubes of different material—iron, copper, of different experiments.
aluminum, wood, plastic, and Styrofoam—and weighed Many groups tested the impact of mass—as one of their
them outside of water and then submerged in water. This factors—and had similar results. This led to a discussion
method worked well for the cubes that sank beneath the about the nature of science and how confidence in results
water’s surface, but (obviously) did not work for the ob- increases as more researchers (i.e., students) report common
jects that floated. findings. One group tested the impact of the depth from
The group was reminded that to make comparisons the water’s surface on buoyant force. The group’s results
between the cubes’ buoyant forces, only one variable could conflicted—some data demonstrated that depth might have
change each time. Originally, the students’ experimental an impact, while other data showed the opposite.
design focused on mass as the changing, independent After students discussed these inconsistent results, they
variable. However, an object’s flotation acted as a second, decided to redo the test as a class. The class’s results showed
confounding variable that affected the data gathered—any that depth did not have an effect on buoyant force. These
final conclusions about buoyant force could therefore not be results led to a discussion about students’ confidence in their
attributed solely to a change in mass. Students quickly real- results on the effect of depth, compared to their results on
ized that two variables had changed when objects floated, the effect of mass. Because less testing had been done on the
instead of one; they therefore needed to redesign the project impact of depth, students agreed they felt more confident
to only include objects that could be submerged in water. about the results of the mass experiments.

November 2010 41
 In addition to these experiments, another group used the [A]ll scientific disciplines are guided in their inquires by
force probe illustrated in Figure 3 (p. 41) to investigate the models that scientists use to construct explanations for data
impact of the fluid’s density on the buoyant force exerted on and to further explore nature. The development, use, assess-
a submerged object. This was accomplished by submerging ment, and revision of models and related explanations play
the same object in different liquids (e.g., oil and water). a central role in scientific inquiry and should be a prominent
feature of students’ science education (p. 295).
D ay 7
Day 7 of the module aligned with the iterations component It should be a goal for student experiences in science
of the MBI road map (Figure 1, p. 39). To revise and finalize classrooms to more realistically mirror the work of scientists
their models for submission, students were asked to con- (Clement 1989). Using MBI as a learning anchor for students
sider everything they had learned over the last six days. The in high school physics aligns with this goal.
finalized models were assessed using the Buoyancy Model The approach shared in this article offers one possible
Guidelines and Rubric (Figure 2, p. 40). way to structure MBI experiences for students—but this
Figure 4 is an example of one group’s final model. This is just one example of how to translate the framework into
group tested two factors—the impact of a submerged object’s practice. Because the MBI instructional strategy focuses on
shape and mass. In addition, based on other groups’ presenta- deeply connecting science concepts, science processes, the
tions, the group also included statements about the impact of a nature of science, and communication in science learning,
submerged object’s density and depth from the water’s surface. it can be used in conjunction with any science discipline.
The results of the tests led the group to conclude that, for We hope that more science teachers and university science
objects of equal volume, “the density,
surface area, and depth of an object FIGURE 4
[do not] affect the buoyant force in
the water.” Based on the group’s re- Example of group buoyancy model.
flections, the students also concluded
that “no matter the mass of an object,
the buoyant force stays the same if the
volume stays the same.”

Conclusion
The American Academy for
the Advancement of Science
(AAAS 1989) states that “teach-
ing should be consistent with
the nature of scientific inquiry”
(p. 147). MBI is widely consid-
ered to be a meaningful emergent
instructional strategy in science
education (Passmore and Stew-
art 2002; Passmore, Stewart,
and Cartier 2009; Schwarz et al. 2009;
Windschitl, Thompson, and Braaten
2008). Its roots can be found in the
works of Gobert and Buckley (2000),
who describe model-based teach-
ing broadly as “any implementation
that brings together information
resources, learning activities, and in-
structional strategies intended to fa-
cilitate mental model-building both
in individuals and among groups of
learners.” Passmore, Stewart, and
Cartier (2009) liken the process of
modeling to the work of scientists:

42 The Science Teacher

 Model-Based Inquiry

educators will continue to share how they have translated Journal of Science Education 22 (9): 891–894.
the MBI framework into practice. n Johnston, A. 2008. Demythologizing or dehumanizing? A
response to settlage and the ideals of open inquiry. Journal of
Drew Neilson ([email protected]) is a science Science Teacher Education 19: 11–13.
teacher at Logan High School in Logan, Utah; Todd Campbell McComas, W. 2004. Keys to teaching the nature of science. The
([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the Depart- Science Teacher 71 (9): 24–27.
ment of Secondary Education and Benjamin Allred (benjamin. Passmore, C., and J. Stewart. 2002. A modeling approach to
[email protected]) is an undergraduate student, both at teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of
Utah State University in Logan. Research in Science Teaching 39 (3): 185–204.
Passmore, C., J. Stewart, and J. Cartier. 2009. Model-based inquiry
On the web and school science: Creating connections. School Science and
National and state science standards addressed: www.nsta.org/ Mathematics 109 (7): 394–402.
highschool/connections.aspx Oh, P.S., and S.J. Oh. Forthcoming. What teachers of science
need to know about models: An overview. International Jour-
References nal of Science Education.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1989. Schwarz, C., B. Reiser, E. Davis, L. Kenyon, A. Acher, D. Fortus,
Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Y. Schwatz, B. Hug, and J. Krajcik. 2009. Developing a learn-
Clement, J. 1989. Learning via model construction and criti- ing progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific mod-
cism: Protocol evidence on sources of creativity in science. In eling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research
Handbook of creativity: Assessment, theory and research, eds. J.A. in Science Teaching 46 (6): 632–654.
Glover, R.R. Ronning, and C.R. Reynolds, 341–381. New York: Windschitl, M., J. Thompson, and M. Braaten. 2008. Beyond the
Plenum Press. scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of
Gobert, J., and B. Buckley. 2000. Introduction to model-based preference for school science investigations. Science Education
teaching and learning in science education. International 92 (5): 941–967.

FIGURE 5

Whole-class buoyant force concept map.

Depth under
surface

Did not affect

Volume of object buoyant force Density of
in water object

Direct relationship Did not affect

(big volume, big force) buoyant force
Buoyant
force
Did not affect Direct relationship
buoyant force (big density, big force)
Did not affect
buoyant force
Shape of Density of
object Mass of fluid
object

(Note: The four factors that did not affect buoyancy hold true only when volume is held constant—a condition that
held true as groups tested these four factors.)

November 2010 43
View publication stats