This semester, during our coursework with Dr. Streveler, we have been working towards socially constructing knowledge about conceptual change.  Coming into this class, I had read next to no literature in this area, and I am just beginning to grasp a bit about the landscape of research on conceptual change.  Two key questions motivate our investigation of this literature:  What is conceptual change?  How can we help conceptual change happen?  One main distinction in literature that has been developed during this course so far relates to conceptual change as either a process of knowledge acquisition or one of participatory learning.  Leach and Scott (2008) suggest that these are two fundamentally different views on conceptual change; they do not represent ends of a continuum.  For this initial blog, I will outline the main ideas that have struck me within each side of this divide and then conclude with some questions that have arisen out of the reading and discussion we’ve done so far as a group.

The initial readings of the semester centered around the idea of conceptual change as an individual’s approach to an accepted, “correct” model.  This view of conceptual change as a process of knowledge acquisition posits that the concept resides within the individual.  Concepts are “units of mental representation roughly equivalent to a single word, such as object, animal, alive, heat, weight, and matter” (Carey, 2000, p. 14).  Researchers have varying ideas about the way in which individuals organize concepts.  Vosniadou (2008) argues that concepts exist as coherent frameworks, which may or may not be aligned with the correct model.  This is in contrast to diSessa (2008),  who argues that concepts are pieces of knowledge within the learner that must be rearranged and recontextualized for conceptual change to occur.

Also within the view of conceptual change as the acquisition of knowledge, Chinn and Brewer (1993) claim that major changes in beliefs occur over long periods of time as students acquire more knowledge.  They look at conceptual change as something that can be spurred by the presentation of anomalous data, which is often dismissed by the learner.  This dismissal is based on the individual’s prior knowledge and expectations.  Four characteristics of prior beliefs can influence a response that may or may not motivate conceptual change:  a) entrenchment of the individual’s current theory, b) the individual’s ontological beliefs, c) the individual’s epistemological commitments, and d) the individuals background knowledge (Chinn & Brewer, 1993, p. 14).  Chi (2008) also discusses the role of prior knowledge and its effect on conceptual change.  Her work frames conceptual change in three different ways as a function of prior knowledge:  a) students have no prior knowledge, so conceptual change doesn’t occur b) students have some prior knowledge, but it is incomplete and the gaps need filling (still no conceptual change), or c) students have a misconception, which requires conceptual change.

Beyond these main claims in the conceptual change literature, other researchers favor looking at conceptual change in a way that includes not just the learner, but also the social and contextual influences on learning.  This leads us to the alternative view of conceptual change, which situates conceptual change as something that occurs through participatory learning.

Learning certainly does not occur in isolation, so it seems logical to describe conceptual change as a function of social interactions.  Sinatra (2002) uses the idea that conceptual change occurs within a broader individual and social context as an argument that research in this area should measure the process, not just the outcome.  Additional researchers build upon social constructivist theory and describe teaching and learning science as “involving an introduction of the social language of school science against a backdrop of everyday reasoning” (Leach & Scott, 2008, p. 664).  Säljö (1999) provides a very interesting way of looking at conceptual change as discursive and a function of language.   He views conceptual as wholly a process of participatory learning since language is collective and socially constructed (Säljö, 1999).   As we continue on with the semester, we are developing this idea of conceptual change as participatory learning.

The readings so far have intrigued my interest in conceptual change.  As the semester continues, I am left with the following questions, especially as they relate to the different classifications of conceptual change discussed above:  Who is responsible for initiating and promoting conceptual change?  Does conceptual change come to an end, or is it a never-ending evolution?  What type of prompt is required for conceptual change to occur?  Does conceptual change occur immediately, or is it a slow, gradual process?  Do individuals hold one cohesive conceptualization or is their knowledge organized in multiple conceptions simultaneously?  With the additional readings and discussions remaining in the semester, I hope to gain more insight into these questions.

References

Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 13-19.

Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. International handbook of research on conceptual change, 61-82.

Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of educational research, 63(1), 1-49.

DiSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird’s-eye view of the “pieces” vs.“coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). International handbook of research on conceptual change, 35-60.

Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2008). Teaching for conceptual understanding: An approach drawing on individual and sociocultural perspectives. International handbook of research on conceptual change, 647-675.

Sinatra, G. (2002). Motivational, social, and contextual aspects of conceptual change: A commentary. Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice, 187-197.

Säljö, R. (1999). Concepts, cognition and discourse: From mental structures to discursive tools. New perspectives on conceptual change, 81-90.

Vosniadou, S. (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change: Routledge.

Trying to understand the process of conceptual change led researchers to consider multiple perspectives that could affect learning. Overtime it seems that the focus of the research has shifted from concentrating primarily on individual learning processes to considering more how social aspects interact with and influence the development of knowledge in an individual.

In our earlier readings we looked at works by Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog (1981) and Carey (2000). These works compared conceptual change in student learning to historical developments in science and advocated for cognitive conflict as a mechanism for conceptual change. Specific steps of conceptual change process were suggested to consider in developing of instructional materials.

In the Introductory chapter of the International handbook of research on conceptual change (2008), Vosniadou presented a more current thinking about the process of conceptual change, indicating flaws of the approach of comparing students to scientists as well as the overreliance on the use of cognitive conflict for producing conceptual change in students “because it focuses on inappropriate prior knowledge that cannot be used constructively in the learning process.” In addition, major issues of the field were highlighted, such as cohesion vs fragmentation of knowledge, the nature of concepts and kinds of conceptual change, processes and mechanisms of conceptual change as well as the role of sociocultural factors in learning.

In Chapter 1 of the International handbook of research on conceptual change (2008) Vosiniadou provides a perspective on conceptual change that is based on the theoretical assumption that “initial explanations of the physical world in naïve physics are not fragmented observations but form a coherent whole, a framework theory” and the process of conceptual change is characterized by re-categorization of the conceptual knowledge. According to this paper, conceptual change can be better facilitated by the use of “top-down, deliberate and intentional learning mechanisms.”

In Chapter 3 Chi (2008) writes about conceptual change “in order to achieve radical conceptual change, students need to make a category shift by reassigning a concept to another lateral category. We need to confront students at the categorical level.” This description provides an explanation for the knowledge organization. Misconceptions are explained as inappropriately assigned concepts. To correct such misconceptions categorical shift is needed and students need to be aware of it. Slotta and Chi (2006) suggest that conceptual change can be facilitated by “training students in the appropriate ontology prior to physics instruction.” In later work, Chi et. al (2012) conclude that students in school rely “on the same Direct Schema that they have developed for everyday processes to understand and interpret processes that they have to learn in the context of their science classes.” Application of Direct Schema to interpret emergent processes is viewed as a cause for developing misconceptions.

Participatory aspect of learning was discussed in Gorodetsky and Keiny (2002). They wrote, “The participatory approach focuses on the dialogical interaction between “the outer” (the social context) and “the inner” (the individual learner) interacting to construct meaning. ”In addition the authors state that: “these two approaches are different “facets of the complex phenomena of learning…Each facet is not independent of the other. “(p. 150)

The role of sociocultural factors is also discussed in Saljo (1999) where the emphasis in placed on the situated nature of learning and the role of language “we need to consider the situated nature of human conceptual knowledge and that the medium that enabled people to come into contact with concepts is language, or rather communication, and communication is – by definition – first and foremost a collective activity.” (p. 84) The role of language and participatory interaction are at the root of understanding conceptual knowledge and conceptual change.

Looking at some of the articles we’ve read this semester, it seems that the definition of conceptual change became more complex over time. Each of the works added a new perspective to the definition and added new characteristics to consider. Starting from a mechanism of cognitive conflict for conceptual change, we added a mechanism of “reassigning a concept to another lateral category” as well as participatory learning and considering language as critical tool for social interaction necessary for knowledge construction. It is important to reflect on all of these different perspectives when trying to define conceptual change, and recognize that each of them contributes a new point of view that helps to move forward the conversation about learning.

References:

Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 13-19.

Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012) Misconceived

causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 1–61.

Gorodetksy, M. & Keiny, S. (2002). Participative learning and conceptual change. (pp.

149-163).

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.

Säljö, R. (1999). Concepts, cognition and discourse: From mental structures to discursive

tools. (pp.81-90).

Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in

science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 261–289.