Student ideas are essential resources for group sensemaking because they provide the foundation for constructing and refining scientific explanations. In Model-Based Inquiry (MBI), learning begins with students bringing their own ideas—drawn from prior knowledge, lived experiences, and intuitive reasoning—into the classroom. These ideas may not yet align with canonical scientific explanations, but they serve as valuable starting points for discussion, comparison, and refinement. By positioning student ideas as resources rather than obstacles, MBI creates a learning environment where students feel empowered to contribute, question, and negotiate their thinking with peers. This approach ensures that sensemaking is an active, student-driven process, rather than one in which they are simply expected to absorb information passively.

As students engage in collaborative modeling and explanation, their ideas are continuously tested against new evidence and refined through structured classroom discussions. Public records—such as initial hypothesis lists, models, and summary tables—help make student thinking visible, allowing groups to track changes in their ideas over time. This process not only deepens their understanding of scientific concepts but also fosters critical thinking and argumentation skills, as they must justify their reasoning and consider alternative perspectives. By treating student ideas as central to the learning process, MBI supports meaningful engagement with science, ensuring that knowledge is not just transmitted but actively built through inquiry and collaboration.

The goal of science is to explain the natural world by developing and refining ideas that account for observed phenomena. Scientific explanations go beyond simply describing what happens; they aim to uncover the underlying mechanisms that reveal why and how things occur. This practice of explanation is fundamental to scientific inquiry, as it allows scientists to construct and test models, generate predictions, and build coherent frameworks that connect diverse observations. In the classroom, engaging students in explanation means supporting them in constructing causal accounts that integrate their prior knowledge, new evidence, and core scientific ideas. Explanation is not just about getting the “right answer”—it is about reasoning through uncertainty, weighing evidence, and making sense of complex systems.

In Model-Based Inquiry (MBI), explanation is at the heart of student learning. As students develop and refine their models, they are actively working toward constructing an explanation for the anchoring phenomenon. This process requires them to use scientific ideas as tools, applying core disciplinary concepts to make sense of their observations. Explanation in MBI is also inherently social—students test their ideas against evidence, engage in argumentation with their peers, and work toward consensus on the best-supported explanation. This mirrors how science operates in the real world, where scientific explanations gain credibility through scrutiny, revision, and alignment with empirical evidence. By making explanation central to classroom practice, MBI helps students see science as an ongoing process of figuring out the natural world, rather than just memorizing facts and definitions.

​In Model-Based Inquiry (MBI), public records are essential tools for tracking and evolving student ideas throughout an instructional unit. These records—such as initial hypotheses lists, summary tables, and "gotta have" checklists—serve as communal reference points that document the progression of student thinking over time. By making student ideas visible and accessible, public records facilitate ongoing reflection and collaborative sensemaking, allowing both students and teachers to monitor how understanding deepens and shifts in response to new evidence and discussions. ​

For example, an initial hypotheses list is typically created at the outset of a unit during the phase where students' ideas about the phenomenon are elicited. This list captures the class's collective starting points and serves as a visual reminder of their initial thoughts. As the unit progresses, students revisit and revise this list, adding new insights or modifying existing ones based on their learning experiences. Similarly, summary tables are used to document what was learned from each activity and how it applies to the anchoring phenomenon, helping students connect individual tasks to the broader scientific concepts under investigation. ​

By maintaining these public records, educators can create a classroom culture that values transparency and reflection, where the evolution of ideas is documented and celebrated as part of the learning process. This approach not only aids in organizing information but also empowers students to take ownership of their learning journey, seeing their contributions as integral to the collective construction of knowledge. 

Modeling is a central practice for group sensemaking in Model-Based Inquiry (MBI) because it allows students to collaboratively negotiate important science ideas and how those ideas contribute to explaining a phenomenon. As students work together to develop and refine their models, they must articulate their reasoning, reconcile different perspectives, and connect their initial ideas with evidence gathered through investigation. This process encourages them to think critically about the explanatory power of their ideas—identifying which aspects are well-supported and which require further refinement. By engaging in this iterative modeling process, students move beyond simply describing what happens to constructing causal explanations that align with core scientific concepts. In this way, modeling not only supports learning but also mirrors the authentic practices of scientists as they develop and test explanatory frameworks for the natural world.

Beyond fostering group sensemaking, modeling also serves as a powerful form of formative assessment, providing teachers with an immediate window into students' thinking. Unlike traditional assessments that may only capture individual understanding at the end of a unit, models reveal students’ evolving ideas in real time, allowing teachers to gauge their conceptual progress and identify areas where additional support is needed. By examining group models, teachers can quickly see how students are reasoning about the phenomenon, where misconceptions or gaps in understanding exist, and how students are integrating new information. This enables more responsive instruction, where teachers can ask targeted questions, introduce new challenges, or facilitate discussions that push student thinking forward. Ultimately, modeling is not just a tool for students—it is an essential instructional strategy that helps teachers guide the development of deep, meaningful scientific understanding.

Phenomena anchor student learning in authentic ways by providing a meaningful context for sensemaking and inquiry. In Model-Based Inquiry (MBI), the anchoring phenomenon serves as the central puzzle that drives student engagement and reasoning throughout the unit. Rather than simply learning abstract concepts in isolation, students work to explain a real-world event or process, making science feel purposeful and relevant. This approach mirrors the way scientists investigate the natural world—starting with an observation or question that demands explanation and using evidence, models, and argumentation to develop a deeper understanding. By grounding learning in observable and compelling phenomena, students are more likely to see the value of scientific inquiry and feel motivated to participate in the construction of knowledge.

Anchoring phenomena also support equitable participation by inviting all students to draw on their own experiences and ideas to make sense of the world around them. Because these phenomena are complex and open-ended, they create space for multiple perspectives and diverse ways of thinking. As students engage in collaborative discussions, model development, and evidence-based reasoning, they refine their understanding through a shared process of sensemaking. This iterative approach not only deepens conceptual learning but also helps students develop important scientific practices, such as questioning, analyzing data, and constructing explanations. Ultimately, anchoring student learning in phenomena fosters curiosity, critical thinking, and a more authentic engagement with science as a dynamic and inquiry-driven discipline.

Discourse is essential as students work together to explain phenomena because it allows them to negotiate ideas, build on one another’s reasoning, and refine their explanations through collaboration. In Model-Based Inquiry (MBI), learning is not just about acquiring knowledge—it is about actively engaging in scientific practices, and discourse is a key mechanism for that engagement. As students discuss their initial ideas, evaluate evidence, and revise their models, they articulate their thinking and consider alternative perspectives. Through this process, they not only deepen their understanding of scientific concepts but also develop critical reasoning and argumentation skills. Effective discourse enables students to clarify their ideas, justify their reasoning, and challenge misconceptions in a supportive, inquiry-driven environment.

Beyond supporting individual learning, discourse helps establish a classroom culture where knowledge is constructed collectively, mirroring the way science operates in the real world. Scientists rely on discourse—through peer review, debates, and collaborative research—to refine their explanations and build consensus around scientific ideas. Similarly, in an MBI classroom, structured discussions, small-group conversations, and whole-class share-outs provide opportunities for students to engage in this process authentically. By listening to and critiquing each other’s explanations, students learn how to make their arguments more robust and evidence-based. This emphasis on discourse ensures that learning is not passive but an active, social endeavor where students take ownership of their scientific sensemaking.