Conceptual Change in Science:
A Process of Argumentation

George Zhou

doi:10.12973/ejmste/75231

Conceptual Change in Science: A Process of Argumentation

Full Text (PDF)

George Zhou ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ University of Windsor, Windsor, CANADA
^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Learning is a process of knowledge construction, individually and socially. It has both rational and irrational features. From this stance, the paper reviews an earlier model of conceptual change and its related pedagogical interventions for their inadequate attention to the irrational and social dimensions of learning. More recent developments in conceptual change pedagogy advocate the incorporation of motivational constructs and social-cultural factors, but fail to explicitly address some important issues in science education. In order to advance the conceptual change theory, the paper proposes an argument approach to teaching for conceptual change. It embraces what past models or approaches have achieved while simultaneously addressing their shortcomings.

Keywords

argument
cognitive conflict
conceptual change
meta-cognition

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75231

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2010 - Volume 6 Issue 2, pp. 101-110

Publication date: 21 Jun 2010

Article Views: 1416

Article Downloads: 1025

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Ametller, J., Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2007). Using perspectives on subject learning to inform the design of subject teaching: An example from science education. The Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 479-492.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all American. NY: Oxford University Press.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Education Psychology, 84, 26-271.
Andre, T., & Windschitl, M. (2003). Interest, epistemological belief, and intentional conceptual change, In. G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 173–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bar, V., Zinn, B., & Rubin, E. (1997). Children’s ideas about action at a distance. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1137-1157.
Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 27(5), 415- 427.
Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Effecting changes in cognitive structures among physics students. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change. Orlando, FL: Aademic.
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109-128.
Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories in action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 37-60.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.) (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.
Erickson, G. L. (1979). Children’s conceptions of heat and temperature. Science Education, 63(2), 221-230.
Erickson, G. L. (1980). Children’s viewpoints of heat: A second look. Science Education, 64(3), 323-336.
Frank, J. (1925). Noble Lecture: Transformations of kinetic energy of free electrons into excitation energy of atoms by impacts. Retrieved February 8, 2010 from http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1925/francklecture.pdf
Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42(2), 119-139.
Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61-98.
Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dualprocess model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal process during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147–179.
Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education, 15, 92-105.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1988). An appropriate conception of teaching science: A view from studies of science learning. Science Education, 72(5), 597-614.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (37-71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248, 114-122.
Minstrell, J. (1985). Teaching for the development of ideas: Focus on moving objects. In C. W. Anderson (Ed.), Observing science classrooms: Perspectives from research and practice. 1984 yearbook of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Columbus, OH: Eric Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nolen, S. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269-287.
Nolen, S. B. (1996). Why study? How reasons for learning influence strategy selection. Educational Psychology Review. 8(4), 335-355.
Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1981). Brainstorming in the classroom to invent a model: A case study. School Science Review, 62(221), 771-778.
O’Donnell, A., & Dansereau, D. (1993). Learning from lectures: Effects of cooperative review. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 116-125.
Osborne, J. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: A rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. 1(3), 271- 290.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 11-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Now York: Columbia University Press.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (H. Weaver, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and selfregulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond Cold Conceptual Change: The Role of Motivational Beliefs and Classroom Contextual Factors in the Process of Conceptual Change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2): 167-99.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
Redish, E. F. & Steinberg, R. N. (1999). Teaching physics: Figuring out what works. Physics Today, 52, 24-30.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2-3), 235-260.
Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The ''warming trend'' in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist. 40(2), 107-115.
Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of intentions in conceptual change learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 1-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Smith, E. L., Blakeslee, T. D., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Teaching strategies associated with conceptual change learning in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 111-126.
Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597-608.
Tao, P-K, & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39-57.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Von Wright, J. (1992). Reflection on reflection. Learning and Instruction, 2, 59-68.
Vosniadou, S. (2008). Conceptual change research: An introduction. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.) International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (pp. xiii-xxvi). Routledge.
Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research: State of the art and future directions. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.). New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 3-13). New York: Pergamon.
Watson, B., & Konicek, R. (1990). Teaching for conceptual change: Confronting children’s experience. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(9), 680-685.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social and academic goals at school: motivation and achievement in context. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp.185-212). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Zhou, G. Brouwer, W., Nocente, N., & Martin, B. (2005). Enhancing conceptual learning through computer-based applets: The effctiveness and implications. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(1), 31-49.

How to cite this article

APA

Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptual Change in Science: A Process of Argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6(2), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75231

Vancouver

Zhou G. Conceptual Change in Science: A Process of Argumentation. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2010;6(2):101-10. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75231

AMA

Zhou G. Conceptual Change in Science: A Process of Argumentation. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2010;6(2), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75231

Chicago

Zhou, George. "Conceptual Change in Science: A Process of Argumentation". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2010 6 no. 2 (2010): 101-110. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75231

Harvard

Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptual Change in Science: A Process of Argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6(2), pp. 101-110. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75231

MLA

Zhou, George "Conceptual Change in Science: A Process of Argumentation". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 6, no. 2, 2010, pp. 101-110. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75231