Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing a Learning Progression of Buoyancy to Model Conceptual Change: A Latent Class and Rule Space Model Analysis

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We applied latent class analysis and the rule space model to verify the cumulative characteristic of conceptual change by developing a learning progression for buoyancy. For this study, we first abstracted seven attributes of buoyancy and then developed a hypothesized learning progression for buoyancy. A 14-item buoyancy instrument was administered to 1089 8th grade students to verify and refine the learning progression. The results suggest four levels of progression during conceptual change when 8th grade students understand buoyancy. Students at level 0 can only master Density. When students progress to level 1, they can grasp Direction, Identification, Submerged volume, and Relative density on the basis of the prior level. Then, students gradually master Archimedes’ theory as they reach level 2. The most advanced students can further grasp Relation with motion and arrive at level 3. In addition, this four-level learning progression can be accounted for by the Qualitative–Quantitative–Integrative explanatory model.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alonzo, A. C., & Gearhart, M. (2006). Considering learning progressions from a classroom assessment perspective. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 14, 99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Learning progressions in science: current challenges and future directions. In A. Alonzo & A. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science (pp. 257–292). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. (2015). Cognitive diagnosis and remedial teaching on junior middle school students’ concepts of buoyancy. Unpublished master dissertation. Zhe Jing: Zhe Jing Normal University.

  • Chen, F., Zhang, S. S., Guo, Y. F., & Xin, T. (2016). Applying the rule space model to develop a learning progression for thermochemistry. Research in Science Education, 47, 1357–1378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9553-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F., Yan, Y., & Xin, T. (2017). Developing a learning progression for number sense based on the rule space model in China. Educational Psychology, 37, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change across ontological categories: examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129–186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Disessa, A. A., Vosniadou, S., Ivarsson, J., Schoultz, J., … Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice. Science Education, 87(6), 913–916.

  • Clement, J. (2008). The role of explanatory models in teaching for conceptual change. In S. Vos-niadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 417–452). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2007). Changing conceptual change. Human Development, 50(1), 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2013). A bird’s-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. 31–48). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington: National Academics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebel, R. L. (1965). Measuring educational achievement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulmer, G. W., Liang, L. L., & Liu, X. (2014). Applying a force and motion learning progression over an extended time span using the force concept inventory. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2918–2936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti, B. J. (1993). Critical review of qualitative research on conceptual change from science education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC.

  • Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of “floating and sinking”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2005). Examining young children’s conceptual change process in floating and sinking from a social constructivist perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 259–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joung, Y. J. (2009). Children’s typically-perceived-situations of floating and sinking. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 101–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. A., & Wilson, M. (2007). Using progress variables to interpret student achievement and progress. Berkeley: University of California, BEAR Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, F., Yu, N., & Xin, T. (2009). Development of diagnostic math test for grade 4 and grade 5 based on the rule space model. Psychological Development and Education, 3, 113–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loverude, M. E., Kautz, C. H., & Heron, P. R. L. (2003). Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. I. Research on student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 71(11), 1178–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclin, D., Grosslight, L., & Davis, H. (1997). Teaching for understanding: a study of students’ pre-instruction theories of matter and a comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 317–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic science assessment: a new approach for investigating conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 91–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M. (1983a). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 122–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M. (1983b). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299–324). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, R., Tomas, L., & Lewthwaite, B. (2016). Learning in earth and space science: a review of conceptual change instructional approaches. International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). In R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.), Taking science to school; learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington DC: The National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). The LNR approach to human information processing. Cognition, 10, 235–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of causality. London: Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of physical causality. Totowa: Littlefield.

    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(2), 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şahin, Ç., & Çepni, S. (2012). Effect of different teaching methods and techniques embedded in the 5E instructional model on students’ learning about buoyancy force. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 4(2), 97–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 15–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shao, J. X., & Liu, M. (2017). The design and improvement of buoyancy experiment teaching. Teaching & Administration, 31, 63–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • She, H. C. (2002). Concepts of a higher hierarchical level require more dual situated learning events for conceptual change: a study of air pressure and buoyancy. International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 981–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • She, H. C. (2005). Enhancing eighth grade students’ learning of buoyancy: the interaction of teachers’ instructional approach and students’ learning preference styles. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 609–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. L., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: a case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21(3), 177–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: a proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4, 1–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soto Lombana, C., Otero, J., & Sanjosé López, V. (2005). A review of conceptual change research in science education. Revista De Educación En Ciencias, 6(1), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedle, J. T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2009). Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 699–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2010). Understanding the nature and processes of conceptual change: an essay review. Education Review, 14(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: the case of “structure of matter”. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123–2136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: an approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 345–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ünal, S., & Costu, B. (2005). Problematic issue for students: does it sink or float? Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 51–67.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: an item response modeling approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. R., & Bertenthal, M. W. (2005). Systems for state science assessment. Washington DC: The National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Y. (2005). The influence of formative assessments on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University.

  • Yin, Y., Shavelson, R. J., Ayala, C. C., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., … Young, D. B. (2008a). On the impact of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 335–359.

  • Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008b). Diagnosing and dealing with student misconceptions: floating and sinking. Science Scope, 31, 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K., & Shavelson, R. J. (2014). Using formal embedded formative assessments aligned with a short-term learning progression to promote conceptual change and achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 531–552.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment toward Basic Education Quality, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekou Wai Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100875, China

    Yizhu Gao & Tao Xin

  2. Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, 485 Lasuen Mall, Cubberley 215, Stanford, CA, 94305-1234, USA

    Xiaoming Zhai

  3. Centre for Educational Measurement, University of Oslo, 1072 Blindern, 0316, Oslo, Norway

    Björn Andersson

  4. College of Teacher Education, Zhejiang Normal University, No. 688 Yingbin Road, Jinghua City, 321004, Zhejiang, China

    Pingfei Zeng

Authors
  1. Yizhu Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaoming Zhai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Björn Andersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pingfei Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tao Xin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tao Xin.

Appendix

Appendix

figure a
figure b
figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gao, Y., Zhai, X., Andersson, B. et al. Developing a Learning Progression of Buoyancy to Model Conceptual Change: A Latent Class and Rule Space Model Analysis. Res Sci Educ 50, 1369–1388 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9736-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9736-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation