Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Assessing students' understanding of computational modeling in physics

Roeland Boot 1 2 * ,
Wouter Van Joolingen 3,
Kim Krijtenburg-Lewerissa 4
1 PhD candidate2 Physics Teacher3 Professor of didactics of mathematics and natural sciences4 Associate professor of physics didactics* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 9, Issue 2, May 2026, pp. 39-68
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 41 DOWNLOADS: 12 Publication date: 15 May 2026
ABSTRACT
Computational modeling is increasingly included in secondary physics curricula. In classroom practice, however, students often work with pre-designed computational models rather than constructing or modifying models themselves. Research on modeling in science education indicates that meaningful engagement with models requires meta-modeling knowledge: an understanding of models' nature, purpose, use, and limitations in scientific inquiry. Yet little is known about how secondary students reason about computational models and how this meta-modeling knowledge can be systematically analyzed. This study adapts the Framework for Modeling Competence (FMC) to the context of physics computational modeling in order to examine students’ meta-modeling knowledge. The resulting Framework for Computational Modeling Competence (FCMC) characterizes students’ reasoning about computational modeling across five epistemic aspects (Nature, Multiple, Purpose, Testing, and Changing), each articulated across three levels of understanding. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 36 upper secondary pre-university physics students in the Netherlands. Students were asked to reason about two computational physics models, and their utterances were analyzed using the FCMC's aspect–level combinations. The analysis shows that students most frequently demonstrated meta-modeling knowledge related to the Purpose and Testing aspects of computational models. In contrast, reasoning corresponding to the highest level of understanding was absent for the aspects Nature, Multiple, and Changing. These findings suggest that while students can use computational models to interpret or compare results, they experience greater difficulty reasoning about computational models as epistemic tools involving assumptions, alternative representations, and model revision. The study provides an analytical framework for examining students’ meta-modeling knowledge in computational modeling and highlights the need for instructional approaches that explicitly support epistemic reasoning about computational models in physics education.
KEYWORDS
computational modeling, framework assessment, meta-modeling knowledge, physics education
CITATION (APA)
Boot, R., Van Joolingen, W., & Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K. (2026). Assessing students' understanding of computational modeling in physics. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 9(2), 39-68. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.923
REFERENCES
  1. Airey, J., Lindqvist, J. G., & Kung, R. L. (2019). What Does It Mean to Understand a Physics Equation? A Study of Undergraduate Answers in Three Countries. In E. McLoughlin, O. E. Finlayson, S. Erduran, & P. E. Childs (Red.), Bridging Research and Practice in Science Education: Selected Papers from the ESERA 2017 Conference (pp. 225-239). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17219-0_14
  2. Aksit, O., & Wiebe, E. N. (2020). Exploring Force and Motion Concepts in Middle Grades Using Computational Modeling: A Classroom Intervention Study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z
  3. Angell, C., Kind, M., Henriksen, E. K., & Guttersrud, Ø. (2008). An empirical-mathematical modelling approach to upper secondary physics. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/43/3/001
  4. Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2002). Scientists’ Thoughts on Scientific Models. Perspectives on Science, 10(3), 275-301. https://doi.org/10.1162/106361402321899069
  5. Banda, H. J., & Nzabahimana, J. (2021). Effect of integrating physics education technology simulations on students’ conceptual understanding in physics: A review of literature. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023108
  6. Bao, L., & Koenig, K. (2019). Physics education research for 21st century learning. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0007-8
  7. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719-756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7%3C719::AID-TEA6%3E3.0.CO;2-V
  8. Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0036-2
  9. Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond Dichotomies. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie. https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194
  10. Campbell, T., & Oh, P. S. (2015). Engaging Students in Modeling as an Epistemic Practice of Science: An Introduction to the Special Issue of the Journal of Science Education and Technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 125-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9544-2
  11. Constantinou, C. P., Nicolaou, C. Th., & Papaevripidou, M. (2019). A Framework for Modeling-Based Learning, Teaching, and Assessment. In A. Upmeier zu Belzen, D. Krüger, & J. van Driel (Red.), Towards a Competence-Based View on Models and Modeling in Science Education (pp. 39-58). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30255-9_3
  12. diSessa, A. A. (2018). Computational Literacy and “The Big Picture” Concerning Computers in Mathematics Education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403544
  13. Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20414
  14. Fuhrmann, T., Schneider, B., & Blikstein, P. (2018). Should students design or interact with models? Using the Bifocal Modelling Framework to investigate model construction in high school science. International Journal of Science Education, 40(8), 867-893. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1453175
  15. Fulford, G., Forrester, P., & Jones, A. (1997). Modelling with Differential and Difference Equations. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139172660
  16. Galili, I. (2018). Physics and Mathematics as Interwoven Disciplines in Science Education. Science and Education, 27(1-2), 7-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9958-y
  17. García-Toraño, E., Peyres, V., & Salvat, F. (2019). PenNuc: Monte Carlo simulation of the decay of radionuclides. Computer Physics Communications, 245, 106849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2019.08.002
  18. Giere, R. N. (2004). How Models Are Used to Represent Reality. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 742-752. https://doi.org/10.1086/425063
  19. Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280107
  20. Gogolin, S., & Krüger, D. (2018). Students’ understanding of the nature and purpose of models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1313-1338. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21453
  21. Göhner, M., 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21759
  22. Grapin, S. E., Haas, A., Llosa, L., Wendel, D., Pierson, A., & Lee, O. (2023). Multilingual learners’ epistemologies in practice in the context of computational modeling in an elementary science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(9), 1998-2041. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21850
  23. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280907
  24. Grünkorn, J., zu Belzen, A. U., & Krüger, D. (2014). Assessing Students’ Understandings of Biological Models and their Use in Science to Evaluate a Theoretical Framework. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1651-1684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.873155
  25. Heck, A., Kedzierska, E., & Ellermeijer, T. (2009). Design and implementation of an integrated computer working environment for doing mathematics and science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(2), 147-161. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/30302/
  26. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440-454. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15129
  27. Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. Oxford University Press.
  28. Husen, A., & Chowdhury, S. (2023). Interdisciplinary Nature of Computational Science Cases in Business Studies. Global Disclosure of Economics and Business, 12, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.18034/gdeb.v12i1.692
  29. Jansen, S., Knippels, M. C. P. J., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2019). Assessing students’ understanding of models of biological processes: A revised framework. International Journal of Science Education, 41(8), 981-994. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1582821
  30. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110142
  31. Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2015). Current Issues in Competence Modeling and Assessment. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology. https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.61
  32. Kooij, S., Wolthuis, E., Kruijver, B., Bouma, L., Habing, P., Ballast, A., Van Rijssel, J., & Van Buchem, J. (2023). Syllabus_natuurkunde_vwo_2024_versie_4. College voor Toetsen en Examens vwo, havo, vmbo. https://www.examenblad.nl/2024/vwo/documenten/syllabus-natuurkunde-vwo-v4
  33. Koponen, I. T. (2007). Models and modelling in physics education: A critical re-analysis of philosophical underpinnings and suggestions for revisions. Science and Education, 16(7-8), 751-773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9000-7
  34. Krell, M., Belzen, A. U. Z., & Krüger, D. (2013). Students’ understanding of the purpose of models in different biological contexts. International Journal Of Biology Education, 3(1a), 1-34. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijobed/article/105891
  35. Lederman, N. G., Zeidler, D. L., & Lederman, J. S. (Red.). (2023). Handbook of Research on Science Education: Volume III. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367855758
  36. Löhner, S. (2005). Computer based modeling tasks: The Role of external representation [Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam]. https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=cd4b17af-f9cc-4385-b6bf-623671432911
  37. Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.628748
  38. Magana, A. J., Arigye, J., Udosen, A., Lyon, J. A., Joshi, P., & Pienaar, E. (2024). Scaffolded team-based computational modeling and simulation projects for promoting representational competence and regulatory skills. International Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00494-3
  39. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed). SAGE Publications Inc.
  40. Musaeus, L. H., & Musaeus, P. (2024). Computational Thinking and Modeling: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Learning Transfer. Education Sciences, 14(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090980
  41. Musaeus, L. H., Tatar, D., & Musaeus, P. (2024). Computational modelling in high school biology: A teaching intervention. Journal of Biological Education, 58(4), 812-828. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2118353
  42. Odden, T. O. B., Lockwood, E., & Caballero, M. D. (2019). Physics computational literacy: An exploratory case study using computational essays. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 020152. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020152
  43. Odden, T. O. B., & Zwickl, B. (2025). How physics students build computational literacy by creating computational literature. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 0(0), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2025.2494791
  44. Ogborn, J., & Wong, D. (1984). A microcomputer dynamical modelling system. Physics Education, 19(3), 138. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/19/3/010
  45. Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109-1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191
  46. Ormel, B. J. B. (2010). Het natuurwetenschappelijk modelleren van dynamische systemen; Naar een didactiek voor het voortgezet onderwijs (Natural science modelling of dynamic systems: Towards a didactics for secondary education) [Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University]. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/37371/ormel.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  47. Passmore, C., Gouvea, J. S., & Giere, R. (2014). Models in Science and in Learning Science: Focusing Scientific Practice on Sense-Making. In M. R. Matthews (Red.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp. 1171-1202). Springer.
  48. Phillips, A. M., Gouvea, E. J., Gravel, B. E., Beachemin, P. H., & Atherton, T. J. (2023). Physicality, modeling, and agency in a computational physics class. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010121
  49. Rachmatullah, A., & Wiebe, E. N. (2022). Building a computational model of food webs: Impacts on middle school students’ computational and systems thinking skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(4), 585-618. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21738
  50. Redhead, M. (1980). Models in Physics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 31(2), 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/31.2.145
  51. Rost, M., & Knuuttila, T. (2022). Models as Epistemic Artifacts for Scientific Reasoning in Science Education Research. Education Sciences, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040276
  52. Sabelli, N. H. (1994). On Using Technology for Understanding Science. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 195-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482940040302
  53. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
  54. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
  55. Seoane, M. E., Greca, I. M., & Arriassecq, I. (2022). Epistemological aspects of computational simulations and their approach through educational simulations in high school. Simulation, 98(2), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549720930084
  56. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). The relation between students’ epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modelling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1205-1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802192181
  57. Taha, W. M., Taha, A.-E. M., & Thunberg, J. (2021). Modeling Physical Systems. In W. M. Taha, A.-E. M. Taha, & J. Thunberg (Red.), Cyber-Physical Systems: A Model-Based Approach (pp. 19-40). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36071-9_2
  58. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066485
  59. Upmeier zu Belzen, A., & Krüger, D. (2010). Modellkompetenz im Biologieunterricht. In Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften (Vol. 16, pp. 41-57).
  60. Upmeier zu Belzen, A., Van Driel, J., & Krüger, D. (2019). Introducing a Framework for Modeling Competence. In A. Upmeier zu Belzen, D. Krüger, & J. Van Driel (Red.), Towards a Competence-Based View on Models and Modeling in Science Education (Vol. 12, pp. 3-19). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30255-9_1
  61. Van Borkulo, S. P., Van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & de Jong, T. (2012). What Can Be Learned from Computer Modeling? Comparing Expository and Modeling Approaches to Teaching Dynamic Systems Behavior. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 267-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9314-3
  62. Van Buuren, O., Heck, A., & Ellermeijer, T. (2016). Understanding of Relation Structures of Graphical Models by Lower Secondary Students. Research in Science Education, 46(5), 633-666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9474-x
  63. Van Buuren, O. (2014). Development of a modelling learning path [Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam]. https://dare.uva.nl/search?arno.record.id=471193
  64. Vieyra, R. E., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Fisler, K., Lerner, B. S., Politz, J. G., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2024). Expanding Models for Physics Teaching: A Framework for the Integration of Computational Modeling. Education Sciences, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080861
  65. Weber, J., & Wilhelm, T. (2020). The benefit of computational modelling in physics teaching: A historical overview. European Journal of Physics, 41(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ab7a7f
  66. Weber, J., & Wilhelm, T. (2024). Contributing factors to the improvement of conceptual understanding in a computer-based intervention in Newtonian dynamics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 20(2), 020130. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020130
  67. Weller, D. P., Bott, T. E., Caballero, M. D., & Irving, P. W. (2021). Developing a learning goal framework for computational thinking in computationally integrated physics classrooms. http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.07981
  68. Wild, M. (1996). Mental models and computer modelling. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(1), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1996.tb00033.x
  69. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259
  70. Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792-823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10112
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.