Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ Conceptions as Dynamically Emergent Structures

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is wide consensus that learning in science must be considered a process of conceptual change rather than simply information accrual. There are three perspectives on students’ conceptions and conceptual change in science that have significant presence in the science education literature: students’ ideas as misconceptions, as coherent systems of conceptual elements, and as fragmented knowledge elements. If misconceptions, systems of elements, or fragments are viewed implicitly as “regular things”, these perspectives are in opposition. However, from a complex dynamic systems perspective, in which students’ conceptions are viewed as dynamically emergent structures, the oppositions are lessened, and the integrated view has significant implications for theory and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Yates et al. (1988), Clark (2006), Clark and Jorde (2004), diSessa et al. (2004), Clark et al. (2011).

  2. Wiser and Carey (1983), Carey (1985, 1999, 2000), Gopnik and Schulz (2004), Gopnik and Wellman (1994), Vosniadou (1994, 2002), Vosniadou e al. (2008).

  3. Ioannides and Vosniadou (2002), diSessa et al. (2004), Clark et al. (2011).

  4. Ioannides and Vosniadou (2002), diSessa et al. (2004), Clark et al. (2011).

  5. Piaget (1977), Inhelder and Piaget (1958), Johnson (1987), Varela et al. (1991), Lakoff and Johnson (1999), Gallese and Lakoff (2005), Wilson (2002).

References

  • Amin, T. G. (2009). Conceptual metaphor meets conceptual change. Human Development, 52(3), 165–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Self-organization in conceptual growth: Practical implications. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 504–519). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E. (1989). Students’ concept of force: The importance of understanding Newton’s third law. Physics Education, 24(6), 353–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E. (1993). Refocusing core intuitions: A concretizing role for analogy in conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1273–1290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E. (2000). Merging dynamics: An integrating perspective on learning, conceptual change, and teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

  • Brown, D. E. (2010). Students’ conceptions—coherent or fragmented? And what difference does it make? Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18(4), 237–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2013). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, (2nd ed., pp. 121–137). New York: Routledge.

  • Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. K. Scholnick, K. Nelson, & P. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget’s Legacy (pp. 293–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M., & Brown, D. E. (2010). Conceptual resources in self-developed explanatory models: The importance of integrating conscious and intuitive knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2367–2392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M., & Brown, D. E. (2012). The role of metacognition in students’ development of explanatory ideas of magnetism. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.

  • Clark, D., & Jorde, D. (2004). Helping students revise disruptive experientially supported ideas about thermodynamics: Computer visualizations and tactile models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Schleigh, S. P. (2011). Comparison of students’ knowledge structure coherence and understanding of force in the Philippines, Turkey, China, Mexico, and the United States. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 207–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2013). The knowledge integration perspective: Connections across research and education. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 520–538). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. J., & Brown, D. E. (2008). Using analogies and models in instruction to deal with students’ preconceptions. In J. J. Clement (Ed.), Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students: The role of analogy, imagery, and mental simulation (pp. 139–155). New York: Springer.

  • Clement, J. J., & Steinberg, M. S. (2002). Step-wise evolution of mental models of electric circuits: A “learning-aloud” case study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 389–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z. (1998). The case for analogies in teaching science for understanding. In J. Mintzes, Wandersee, J., Novak, J. (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding (pp. 195–211). San Diego: Academic Press.

  • Dega, B. G., Kriek, J., & Mogese, T. F. (2013). Students’ conceptual change in electricity and magnetism using simulations: A comparison of cognitive perturbation and cognitive conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 677–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2008). A birds-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 35–60). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2013). A birds-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change, (2nd ed., pp. 31–48). New York: Routledge.

  • diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, Ind.: National Education Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography–STCSE. Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education (http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/download_stcse.html).

  • Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3), 455–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Boston: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (2004). Mechanisms of theory-formation in young children. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 371–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257–293). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gutwill, J. P., Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1999). Making their own connections: Students’ understanding of multiple models in basic electricity. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 249–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 97–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. (1962). Messing about in science. Science and Children, 2(5), 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstadter, D. R. (2001). Analogy as the core of cognition. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 499–538). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2, 5–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence; an essay on the construction of formal operational structures. New York: Basic Books.

  • Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khine, M. S., & Saleh, I. M. (Eds.). (2011). Models and modeling: Cognitive tools for scientific enquiry. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 143–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koponen, I. T., & Pehkonen, M. (2010). Coherent knowledge structures of physics represented as concept networks in teacher education. Science & Education, 19(3), 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leander, K., & Brown, D. E. (1999). “You understand, but you don't believe it”: Tracing the stabilities and instabilities of interaction in a physics classroom through a multidimensional framework. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 93–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C., Pery, R., Hurd, J., & O’Connell, M. P. (2006). Lesson study comes of age in North America. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 273–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S. C., Law, N., & Lui, K. F. A. (2006). Cognitive perturbation through dynamic modelling: A pedagogical approach to conceptual change in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 405–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manson, S. M. (2001). Simplifying complexity: A review of complexity theory. Geoforum, 32, 405–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotaki, G., Nobes, G., & Banerjee, R. (2006). Children’s representations of the earth: A methodological comparison. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24(2), 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusanen, A.-M., & Pöyhönen, S. (2012). Concepts in change. Science & Education, 22(6), 1389–1403. doi:10.1007/s11191-012-9489-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneps, M. H., & Crouse, L. (2002). A private universe: Misconceptions that block learning [videorecording]. S. Burlington, Vt.: Annenberg/CPB.

  • Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, E., & Bates, E. (2003). Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science, 6(4), 378–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towers, J., & Davis, B. (2002). Structuring occasions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. T., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning & Instruction, 4, 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naïve physics. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 11–30). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ch. 1 & 3.

  • Wilensky, U. (2010). Netlogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL. Available at http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/.

  • Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 267–298). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J., Bessman, M., Dunne, M., Jertson, D., Sly, K., & Wendelboe, B. (1988). Are conceptions of motion based on a naive theory or on prototypes? Cognition, 29, 251–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I want to thank Stella Vosniadou, Andy diSessa, and David Hammer, for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

    David E. Brown

Authors
  1. David E. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David E. Brown.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, D.E. Students’ Conceptions as Dynamically Emergent Structures. Sci & Educ 23, 1463–1483 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9655-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9655-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation