Abstract
This paper provides a critical commentary on a suite of eight papers, which focus on conceptual change research in science education. Responses by Mercer, Smardon and Wells to a paper by Treagust and Duit are observed to reflect the backgrounds of the three authors with Wells focusing on issues of ontology and the affective domain. Mercer and Smardon focus on issues of identity and the role of dialog. Hewson’s, Vosniadou’s and Tiberghien’s responses to Roth, Lee and Hwang offer robust critique of what appear to be exploratory ideas. To what extent the authors of the response papers enter into dialog with the papers is discussed. How far research into learning in science has progressed since the 1980s is examined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Dialogos.
Alexander, J., Giesen, B., & Mast, J. (Eds.) (2006). Social performance: symbolic action, cultural pragmatics and ritual. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Brown, R. (1990). Group processes. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Brown, A. L., Metz, K. E., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Social interaction and individual understanding in a community of learners: The influence of Piaget, Vygotsky. In A. Tryphon & J. Vonèche (Eds.), Piaget–Vygotsky: The social genesis of thought (pp. 145–170). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Bruner, J. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eiser, J. R., & van der Pligt, J. (1988) Attitudes and decisions. London: Routledge.
Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
General Teaching Council for England. (2003). ‘Social interaction as a means of constructing learning: the impact of Lev Vygotsky’s ideas on teaching and learning’ a summary produced by the http://www.gtce.org.uk/research/romtopics/rom_teachingandlearning/vygotsky_dec03/).
Grubb, N., & Lazerson, M. (2004). The Education Gospel: The economic power of schooling. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Head, J. (1985). The personal response to science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431–473.
Howe, C. J., Rodgers, C., & Tolmie, A. (1990). Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction and the understanding of floating and sinking. European Journal of Psychology of Education, V, 459–475.
Howe, C. J., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1992). The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children: Group interaction and the understanding of motion down an inclined plane. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 113–130.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Lemke, J. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296–316.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. (2007). Commentary on the reconciliation of cognitive and socio-cultural accounts of conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 42, 75–78.
Mercer, N., Dawes, R., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 367–385.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Milner, M. (2004). Freaks, geeks and cool kids: American teenagers, schools, and the culture of consumption. London: Routledge.
Mortimer, E. F. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science & Education, 4, 267–285.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: Nuffield Foundation.
Pines, A. L. (1985). Toward a taxonomy of conceptual relations. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 101–116). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Pugh, A. (2004). Windfall childrearing: Low-income care and consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 4, 229–249.
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631.
Sensevy, G. (2007). Des catégories pour décrire et comprendre l’action didactique. In G. Sensevy & A. Mercier (Eds.), Agir ensemble: Eléments de théorisation de l’action conjointe du professeur et des élèves (pp. 13–49). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes (PUR).
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press.
Watson, J. R., Prieto, T., & Dillon, J. S. (1997). Consistency of students’ ideas about combustion. Science Education, 81, 425–443.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A socio-cultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85–100). Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dillon, J. Discussion, debate and dialog: changing minds about conceptual change research in science education. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 3, 397–416 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9093-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9093-1