Data Modeling for Preservice
Teachers and Everyone Else
By Anthony J. Petrosino and Michele J. Mann
Although data modeling, the
employment of statistical reasoning
for the purpose of investigating
questions about the world, is
central to both mathematics and
science, it is rarely emphasized
in K16 instruction. The current
work focuses on developing
thinking about data modeling with
undergraduates in general and
preservice teachers in particular.
Subjects were 125 undergraduate
preservice teachers (118 females)
from a highly selective, nationally
recognized teacher education
program. A design-based research
methodology was used, and
data analysis took the form of
retrospective, cross-iteration
comparisons where themes of the
design of inquiry, measurement,
deficit model of experimentation,
and epistemology and nature of
science emerged. Our findings
are relevant to those who seek
ways to support undergraduate
understanding of statistical
reasoning as well as making a
contribution to the challenging
problem of how to support and
integrate preservice teachers
coordination of data modeling
and inquiry into their pedagogical
practice.
18 Journal of College Science Teaching
S
tudents first exposure to
science education is gener-
ally through their elementary
school teacher. Unfortunate-
ly, elementary school teachers are
not typically science majors in col-
lege, and this lack of content back-
ground often makes many feel
unprepared to teach science (Fuen-
tes, Bloom, & Peace, 2014; Howitt,
2007; McLaughlin, 2015; Mulhol-
land & Wallace, 1994). Anderson and
Mitchener (1994) and Baumgartner
(2010) found that elementary teach-
ers have a superficial understanding
of science content and the nature of
science or how science is conducted.
At the same time, elementary sci-
ence teachers have a substantial in-
fluence on their students attitudes
toward science (Baumgartner, 2010;
Fones, Wagner, & Caldwell, 1999;
Vail Lowery, 2002). These findings
collectively suggest that quality sci-
ence teacher education courses are
important for providing future teach-
ers with a solid science education
foundation.
With states adopting the Next Gen-
eration Science Standards (NGSS),
there is more emphasis now on the
need for elementary teachers to teach
science content and process. In accor-
dance with the NGSS, students sci-
ence education should operate at the
nexus of three dimensions: practices,
crosscutting concepts, and disciplin-
ary core ideas (NGSS Lead States,
2013). Preservice teachers need to be
provided with science experiences to
help them build an understanding of
disciplinary core ideas and practices
of science and to connect ideas across
science disciplines (crosscutting
concepts). Knowing the challenges
of elementary science education, we
designed a curriculum that would pro-
vide preservice teachers opportunities
to experience practices and crosscut-
ting concepts while working with sci-
ence content. This type of experience
helps teachers develop the skills they
need to include content in ways that
students can understand (Barnett &
Hodson, 2001). We believe science
teachers and their students need to
experience science as an epistemic
endeavor, meaning that doing and
knowing synergistically guides a
students learning of science (Lehrer
& Schauble, 2015).
The current study is aimed at
developing undergraduate and there-
fore preservice teacher thinking
about data modeling. Data model-
ing is a description of the way data
is organized. In the past, teachers
were expected to teach science
from the ideas of science as rea-
soning and science as conceptual
change; however, with the introduc-
tion of NGSS, teachers now need
to incorporate science as practice
(Lehrer & Schauble, 2015). NGSS
integrates eight practices of science:
questioning; developing and using
models; designing and conducting
investigations; using data; using
computational thinking; constructing
explanations; using argument from
evidence; and obtaining, evaluat-
ing, and communicating information
(NGSS Lead States, 2013). All of
these practices are part of the cur-
riculum the preservice teachers en-
acted during this research. Without a
solid understanding of how to gather
data and the variability of data, it is

not possible to correctly interpret
data or use arguments supported by
data. These skills are needed by all
K16 students, including preservice
teacher educators. Statistics are ubiq-
uitous, and we all need to understand
what the data mean. Our position is
that data modeling is a process that
all K16 students need to understand.
The present work fits into a larger
unit developed for assisting students
to construct a richer understanding
of experiment as a means of expla-
nation or argument (Figure 1). We
begin with problematizing the notion
of measurement (including ideas of
center, spread, and symmetry), prog-
ress to how individual cases are dis-
tributed along a collection (normal,
skewed), and finally discuss tools for
describing variability (distance from
center, rudimentary ideas of standard
deviation). This progress we view as
an entry into the scientific process
of experiment. A process skill that is
part of every K16 STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and math-
ematics) class, yet students are often
handcuffed from full engagement by
not having the proper cognitive and
disciplinary specific tools to engage
in experiment at a meaningful level.
The present work is part of a larger
study focused on postsecondary stu-
dents understanding of experiment
in STEM courses. For this article
we focus on cohorts of preservice
teacher educators, but we believe this
work generalizes to postsecondary
students.
One hundred twenty-five un-
dergraduate preservice elementary
teachers participated in a generative
curricula unit designed to help stu-
dents understand data modeling, data
distribution, and measurement. The
curriculums emphasis was on stu-
dents learning to design experiments
that answered their research questions
(Lehrer, Schauble, Strom, & Pligge,
2001; Petrosino, 2016; Petrosino,
Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003). We gave
the preservice teachers opportunities
Data Modeling for Preservice Teachers
FIGURE 1
Curriculum model for postsecondary instruction for experimentation
and argumentation.
to go beyond cookbook labs (Riegle-
Crumb et al., 2015). The purpose of
these lessons was for the preservice
teachers to experience this process,
so that they could apply the process in
their future classrooms. The emphasis
was on learning the importance of
the process, while practicing ways to
implement content-rich inquiry into
their future classrooms.
In addition to their active participa-
tion in the curriculum, the preservice
teachers also had the opportunity to
observe the same curriculum being
used with a fourth-grade class, and
some of the preservice teachers also
tried the curriculum in their intern-
ship classes.
Methods
Participants
The subjects of this study were un-
dergraduate preservice teachers from
a highly selective nationally recog-
nized teacher education program.
The 125 preservice teachers includ-
ed 118 females and seven malesall
seniors (fall of their final year of col-
lege). These students had previously
completed six content courses in the
College of Natural Science (four in-
quiry lab and lecture science courses
from the options of physics, chemis-
try, geology, biology, and astronomy
and two math courses, Foundations
of Arithmetic and Geometry, Statis-
tics, Probability) along with the Col-
lege of Educations disciplinary rich
pedagogical coursesone on sci-
ence methods and one on mathemat-
ics methods. These courses gave the
preservice teachers a rich foundation
for understanding data modeling as
a component of quality STEM duca-
tion. The activities were chosen in
sequence for data modeling and em-
phasizing distribution of data (Petro-
sino et al., 2003).
Lessons
We used a design-based (Penuel &
Fishman, 2012) model, which is
commonly used to study curriculum
implementation (Brown, 1992) in
real-world classrooms. This type of
research focuses on persistent prob-
lems, using an iterative approach, to
develop theory in a sustainable sys-
tem (Penuel & Fishman, 2012).
We guided the preservice teachers
to develop questions, consider quali-
ties of measures and attributes associ-
ated with the challenge, and structure
data in a form where the preservice
teachers can make inferences about
their questions (Figure 2). By using
Vol. 47, No. 3, 2018 19

FIGURE 2
Descriptions of the activities in the curriculum.
measurement contexts, we made the
ideas of distribution, specifically
center and spread, more meaningful
(Lehrer et al., 2001).
The preservice teachers measured
several itemsa flagpole, a pencil,
and the apex of a model rockets
flightwhich were chosen for the
potential of emphasizing the vari-
ability in measurement. Error sources
were investigated and discussed. Then
the preservice teachers designed a
systematic experiment where they
tested nose cones of a rocket (rounded
vs. pointed nose cones) to determine
if the distribution in heights of the
rockets was consistent with random
variation or attributed to the shape
of the nose cone. We provided the
preservice teachers experiences in the
development, evaluation, and revision
of questions about the phenomena
all important experiences needed for
future teachers.
Research design
We used design-based research, a
research methodology where in-
terventions are conceptualized and
20 Journal of College Science Teaching
then implemented iteratively in
natural settings to test the ecologi-
cal validity of dominant theory and
to generate new theories and frame-
works for conceptualizing learn-
ing, instruction, design processes,
and educational reform (Penuel &
Fishman, 2012). Data analysis took
the form of retrospective, cross-
iteration comparisons. All 125 pre-
service teachers were interviewed
to investigate their conceptions of
individual and collective forms of
inquiry, their perceptions of data
modeling, and their understanding
of experimentation as a form of data
modeling (Table 1). The interviews
addressed the following:
Design of inquiry
Measurement
Deficits model of expermen-
tation
Epistemology and the nature
of science
Analysis
Research team members read and
evaluated a randomly selected sub-
set of preservice teachers positions
on the four categories (n = 15). The
emerging analytic framework was
applied to the remaining interviews.
All interviews were analyzed inde-
pendently and disagreements were
resolved consensually. We present
the results of our largely qualitative
design-based research in this present
study.
Findings
The findings are organized around the
determine categories (Table 1). We
included some overall data for each
category and interview excerpts.
Design of inquiry
The primary type of inquiry the pre-
service teachers used is experimenta-
tion. For example, Cynthia explained
her approach to inquiry:
Teachers are sticking to experi-
ments that are well understood be-
cause they believe students dont
have the ability to understand
sampling distribution or variabil-
ity. When teachers pose a question
and students follow procedures,
there is no room for inquiry or
further exploration of the topic.
Many of the preservice teachers ex-
plained what inquiry was not, rather
than what inquiry was; for instance,
Richard summarized the sentiment of
many of the preservice teachers:
When students investigate some-
thing using questions and steps
that are already preplanned, they
are not really learning through
inquiry.
Many of the other preservice teachers
were fairly honest about their comfort
levels with inquiry investigations and
conducting authentic inquiry in their
future classrooms. Maureen said:
Most teachers do not go past
their comfort zone when it comes

to teaching science or conduct-
ing science activities. Students as
well as teachers should conduct
science experiments where both
the teacher and students are
learning something new as they
go. Not where the teacher already
has an idea of what is going to
happen because shes performed
the experiment numerous times.
The idea of newness as an important
part of inquiry resonated with 71%
of the preservice teachers. Although
the preservice teachers reported some
familiarity with the activities, they
also reported a noticeable difference
with the inquiry activities and how
they were conducted. For instance,
Patty said:
The experiments we conducted
with our students led to inquiry
and high levels of student
engagement because they were
able to experiment, collect data,
and make assumptions based
on their experiments. In high
school and middle school, my
science experiences were not
like those mentioned in the
article (in class). There was little
application to the knowledge I
gained and thus little information
was retained.
Preservice teachers idea of inquiry
and how it could be implemented
changed. They were no longer just
talking about ways to teach science
but also how those processes are
used, which can change the learning
outcome.
Measurement
Like Lehrer and Schauble (2004),
we found measurement played a role
in clarifying the research question.
The preservice teachers used mea-
surement; however, no measurement
guidance was given before the ex-
periment. Preservice teachers had to
determine what measurements were
Data Modeling for Preservice Teachers
TABLE 1
Interview questions by category.
Categorical findings Explanation
Design of inquiry How did students design to learn? Did they
design experiments and understand the logic of
experimentation? What role did they think replication
plays in inference?
Measurement What role did measurement play in student inquiry?
Were measures integral to questions or considered
mere adjuncts?
Deficit model of Can young students conduct meaningful
experimentation investigations?
Epistemology and How did students characterize their activity? How did
nature of science they evaluate the challenges of extended, self-directed
inquiry when contrasted to more packaged forms
of inquiry, like the science kits that comprised their
districts science instructions?
needed and how measurements were especially when there is well-de-
used to answer the inquiry question. signed scaffolding and support. Em-
During the discussion on how to ily said:
measure and display the measure-
ments, conversations about preci- I was blown away by what the
sion and accuracy emerged. It was fourth-grade students were
no longer an exercise of filling in a conducting (students we were
chart, but the preservice teachers had observing) . . . the level of math
to determine what the range of their they were utilizing was amazing.
measurements really meant. The To see that students, who were
emergent conversations were rich in the fourth grade, were able
with discussions on what a measure- to do math that was meant for
ment really showed or didnt show a middle school level. If we
and what a group of measurements engage and have more in-depth
could indicate. During the curricu- discussion with teachers being
lum implementation, the preservice the guide not the answer, then
teachers developed an awareness of students will amaze us beyond
the impact measurement can have on our expectations. Over time,
the understanding of the concepts. as the teacher worked with the
actual students, there was a clear
Deficit Model of transformation that took place,
Experimentation and a deficit model of student
Effective inquiry is more than heu- ability was slowly replaced by
ristics and strategies. Lehrer et al. a more empowered model of
(2001) found that teachers need to student inquiry with the proper
master the enterprise of inquiry. support to conduct inquiry
Teachers need to understand how an activities in a class setting.
experiment can be a way of model-
ing, investigating, or manipulating Madelyn explained in more detail:
a range of situations that are similar
in theoretical ways. Even though the It gives the teacher an
process is complex, it can be used opportunity to learn something
successfully with young students new and along with the students
Vol. 47, No. 3, 2018 21
 become a scientist in search
of answers, evidence, and data
that can explain their claims
or ways of thinking. By doing
this, teachers are deviating from
the idea that experiments have
to be fun and replaced with
experiments being valuable to
the students and their education.
. . . During all the activities
observed, the techniques used to
teach the students were mainly
through the experimentation
itself. The students were
expected to form their claims
and support them with evidence
(argumentation).
Epistemology and nature of
science
The preservice teachers unanimous-
ly described their observations of
current science classrooms as using
cookbook science. The preservice
teachers were in a classroom 2 days a
week throughout the semester. They
described science as being textbook
driven with little to no disciplined
informed activities. Amy expressed
this:
We need to use argumentation,
representation, and modeling in
our experiments to make them
more relevant and engaging to
the students. This is so they can
actually learn what it is they
are doing and why they are
doing it. We might believe the
students see these experiments as
representations of the real world
when they actually dont.
Notions of hands-on activities persist
with the preservice teachers although
with increasing science discipline-
specific components of data modeling,
and argumentation. Diane explained a
specific idea of inquiry:
Hands-on-learning is student
based inquiry. Students are
interacting with materials,
22 Journal of College Science Teaching
making observations, discussing,
collecting, and analyzing their
own data and creating their
own hypotheses. When they
test these hypotheses, they
are able to confirm or reassess
their hypotheses. True hands-
on activities allow for kids to
gather their own data to support
their own ideas. In cases where
evidence and data does not
support their hypothesis, as
happened with the model rockets,
students change their ideas or
misconceptions, the ability to
interact with the materials makes
the learning more memorable
and effective, and [this]
either validates or alters their
understanding.
Discussion
Preservice teacher training and pro-
fessional development will need to
change to give teachers the tools they
need to meet the expectations of the
NGSS. Duschl and Bismack (2016)
proposed that teachers need to accept
a systems approach to STEM, includ-
ing model-based reasoning, systems
thinking, and quantitative reasoning
as an overarching cognitive skill.
Systems thinkers are able to under-
stand and articulate the interaction of
the parts of the system and make pre-
dictions about the system and other
systems interacting with the system.
A person must develop a model to
thoroughly interpret a systems way
of thinking. A well-designed model
can assist with understanding the
phenomena and gathering and ana-
lyzing data. Model-based reasoning
(Ward, 2016), along with quantita-
tive reasoning (Johnson, 2016), are
needed to understand the processes
of a system.
Model-based reasoning is empha-
sized in Taking Science to School
(National Research Council, 2007).
This report recommends that science
learning should involve the use of
evidence for creating models. Model-
based approaches to learning seem
to be the theoretical keystone to un-
derstanding of quantities, developing
data, and explaining the function of
natural systems (Lehrer & Schauble,
2015). It is a difficult task to change
teaching practices (Duschl, 2008;
Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten,
2008) and integrate model-based
thinking, quantitative reasoning,
and systems thinking. Preparing our
future teachers for this integration is
important if they are to successfully
implement the NGSS.
Data modeling is a bridge between
hands-on activities and inference-
making experimentation (Petrosino
et al., 2003). To be successful at data
modeling, one must have an under-
standing of measure, error, and the
way data is structured. It is crucial
that students and teachers understand
units and scale, and how units and
scale are integrated to produce quan-
tities that are necessary for modeling
in science.
Preservice teacher education is
lacking any emphasis on analysis of
sources of error, measure of center,
variability and spread in data, and
modeling tasks, which are elements
of quantitative literacy (Petrosino,
2016). These tasks only require
simple arithmetic, but teachers and
students struggle to apply these ideas
to science content. However, a data
modeling emphasis in preservice
teacher education will help prepare
those future teachers for successful
teaching.
Conclusion
Data modeling is the use of statis-
tical reasoning for the purpose of
investigating questions about the
world. Moreover, data modeling is
explicitly represented in the math-
ematics standards and is also central
to scientific inquiry. Our findings are
important to those who seek ways to
tap students understanding of statis-
tical reasoning as well as to contrib-
ute to a solution of the challenging

problem of how to scaffold students
coordination of data with inquiry.
Without a firm grasp of data mod-
eling, preservice teachers (and we
argue all undergraduates) will have
improvised ideas of measurement,
representation and display of data,
the structure of data, and statistical
inference. Our position concerning
teacher preparation specifically, and
undergraduate education in general,
is that well-developed subject matter
knowledge is vital for effective inte-
grated STEM instruction.
The current work shows the im-
portance of preservice teachers expe-
riencing the process of data modeling
to best prepare them for thinking more
critically about topics such as inte-
gration, inquiry, measurement, and
experiment in elementary classrooms.
We also believe these findings will be
informative for calls seeking reform
in the more general undergraduate
curriculum (Henderson, Finkelstein,
& Beach, 2010). Preparing future
teachers is only part of the changes
that need to be made to meet the
expectations within the Framework
(National Research Council, 2012)
and NGSS. Professional development
needs to be implemented for in-
service teachers, as well as a network
of support for teachers, as they are
shifting their pedagogical practices.
Along with this same idea, more re-
search needs to be done to determine
how teachers need to be assisted in
meeting the expectations of science
education under the NGSS. The entire
system of educators and administra-
tors needs to understand what changes
should be implemented for successful
adoption.
Acknowledgments
Portions of this research were funded in
part by the National Science Foundation
(REC-9973004; MSP 0831811) and
the James S. McDonnell Foundation
(JMSF-97-10). An earlier version of this
article was presented at the Waterbury
Summit, The Pennsylvania State
Data Modeling for Preservice Teachers
University, August 79, 2013. We thank
the many preservice mathematics and
science students who participated in this
work and appreciate the comments and
suggestions of three anonymous review-
ers. Special thanks to Jennifer Cook for
manuscript editing and proofreading.
The views expressed do not necessarily
reflect those of the funding agencies.
References
Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P.
(1994). Research on science teacher
education. In D. Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of research on science
teaching and learning (pp. 344).
New York, NY: MacMillan.
Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001).
Pedagogical context knowledge:
Toward a fuller understanding of
what good science teachers know.
Science Education, 85, 426453.
Baumgartner, E. (2010). Thinking
outside the kit: Building preservice
science teachers inquiry skills with
an experiment that doesnt go as
planned. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 40(1), 5457.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design
experiments: Theoretical and
methodological challenges in
creating complex interventions in
classroom settings. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 2, 141178.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education
in three-part harmony: Balancing
conceptual, epistemic, and social
learning goals. Review of research in
education, 32, 268291.
Duschl, R. A., & Bismack, A. S. (2016).
Reconceptualizing STEM education:
The central role of practices.
London, England: Routledge.
Fones, S. W., Wagner, J. R., &
Caldwell, E. R. (1999). Promoting
attitude adjustments in science for
preservice elementary teachers.
Journal of College Science Teaching,
28(4), 231236.
Fuentes, S. Q., Bloom, M. A., & Peace,
H. (2014). Teaching science and
mathematics: Preservice teachers
perceptions of knowledge needs.
Journal of College Science Teaching,
43(3), 3035.
Henderson, C., Finkelstein, N.,
& Beach, A. (2010). Beyond
dissemination in college science
teaching: An introduction to four
core change strategies. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 39(5),
1825.
Howitt, C. (2007). Preservice
elementary teachers perceptions
of factors in an holistic methods
course influencing their confidence
in teaching science. Research in
Science Education, 37, 4158.
Johnson, H. L. (2016). Quantitative
reasoning in mathematics education:
Directions in research and practice.
In R. A. Duschl & A. Bismack
(Eds.), Reconceptualizing STEM
education: The central role of
practices (pp. 149166). London,
England: Routledge.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004).
Modeling natural variation through
distribution. American Educational
Research Journal, 41, 635679.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). The
development of scientific thinking.
In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology and developmental
science (pp. 144). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., &
Pligge, M. (2001). Similarity of form
and substance: Modeling material
kind. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr
(Eds.), Cognition and instruction:
Twenty-five years of progress (pp.
3974). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McLaughlin, D. (2015). Investigating
preservice teachers self-efficacy
through Saturday science. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 45(1),
7783.
Mulholland, M. J., & Wallace, J.
(1994). Knowing and learning about
science in a preservice setting: A
narrative study. Research in Science
Education, 24, 236245.
National Research Council. (2007).
Taking science to school: Learning
and teaching science in grades
Vol. 47, No. 3, 2018 23
Data Modeling for Preservice Teachers
K8. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
National Research Council.
(2012). A framework for K12
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 (Appendix F:
Science and engineering practices
in the NGSS). Washington,
DC: National Academies
Press. Retrieved from www.
nextgenscience.org/next-generation-
science-standards
Penuel, W. R., & Fishman, B. J.
(2012). Largescale science
education intervention research we
can use. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 49, 281304.
Petrosino, A. J. (2016). Teachers
use of data measurement and data
24 Journal of College Science Teaching
modeling in quantitative reasoning.
In R. A. Duschl, & A. Bismack
(Eds.), Reconceptualizing STEM
education: The central role of
practices (pp. 167180). London,
England: Routledge.
Petrosino, A. J., Lehrer, R., &
Schauble, L. (2003). Structuring
error and experimental variation
as distribution in the fourth grade.
Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 5(23), 131156.
Riegle-Crumb, C., Morton, K., Moore,
C., Chimonidou, A., Labrake, C.,
& Kopp, S. (2015). Do inquiring
minds have positive attitudes? The
science education of preservice
elementary teachers. Science
Education, 99, 819836.
Vail Lowery, N. (2002). Construction
of teacher knowledge in context:
Preparing elementary teachers to
teach mathematics and science.
School Science and Mathematics,
102, 6883.
Ward, A. R. (2016). Modeling
authentic STEM research: A
systems thinking perspective.
In R. A. Duschl & A. Bismack
(Eds.), Reconceptualizing STEM
education: The central role of
practices (pp. 101114). London,
England: Routledge.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., &
Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the
scientific method: Modelbased
inquiry as a new paradigm of
preference for school science
investigations. Science Education,
92, 941967.
Anthony J. Petrosino (ajpetrosino@
austin.utexas.edu) is an associate pro-
fessor and Michele J. Mann (MJMann@
utexas.edu) is a PhD candidate in the
Department of Curriculum and Instruc-
tion in STEM Education at the University
of Texas at Austin.