Instructional Science

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 183–200 | Cite as

Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy

  • Joseph Nussbaum
  • Shimshon Novick


Students' alternative frameworks (frequently regarded as misconceptions) play a crucial role in science concept learning. Accumulated research findings indicate that alternative frameworks are resistant to extinction despite formal instruction.

This paper presents an instructional strategy based on the thesis that science concept learning involves cognitive accommodation of an initially held alternative framework. The strategy consists of three phases: (1) exposing alternative frameworks, (2) creating conceptual conflict, (3) encouraging cognitive accommodation. The first phase is facilitated through an “exposing event,” while the second and third focus on a “discrepant event.”

The authors have used previous research findings about student alternative frame-works for the structure of a gas to create exposing and discrepant events for an introduction to the particle model of gases. The paper presents a case study of two lessons in a sequence on the particle model, accompanied by an analysis of the phases of the instructional strategy employed for cognitive accommodation.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, R. C. (1977). “The notion of schemata and the acquisition of knowledge,” in R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro and W. E. Montague, (eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Chapter 12, pp. 415–431.Google Scholar
  2. Archenhold, W., Driver, R., Orton, A. and Wood Robinson, C., (eds.), (1980). Cognitive Development Research in Science and Mathematics. Leeds, England: The University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning, New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. and Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. (First edition by Ausubel, 1968)Google Scholar
  5. Berlyne, D. E. (1965). “Curiosity and education,” in J. D. Krumboltz, (ed.), Learning and the Educational Process. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, H. I. (1977). Perception, Theory and Commitment: The new Philosophy of Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brumby, M. (1979). “Problems in learning the concept of natural selection,” Journal of Biological Education, 13: 119–122.Google Scholar
  8. Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E. and Anderson, J. (1980). “Factors influencing learning of classical mechanics,” American Journal of Physics 48: 1074–1079.Google Scholar
  9. Clement, J. J. (1979). “The Role of Preconceptions and Representational Transformations in Understanding Physics and Mathematics,” Amherst, Mass.: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  10. Cosgrove, M. and Osborne, R. (1981). “Physical Change”. A Working Paper of the Learning in Science Project, University of Waikato, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  11. Deadman, J. A. and Kelley, P. J. (1978). “What do secondary school boys understand about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topics?” Journal of Biological Education, 12: 7–15.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
  13. di Sessa, A. A. (1981). “Unlearning Aristotelian Physics.” MIT Education Division, working paper.Google Scholar
  14. Driver, R. and Easley, J. (1978). “Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students,” Studies in Science Education, 5: 61–84.Google Scholar
  15. Erickson, G. (1980). “Children's viewpoints of heat: A second look,” Science Education, 64: 323–336.Google Scholar
  16. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  17. Hawkins, D. (1978). “Critical barriers to science learning” Outlook, Issue 29, Autumn.Google Scholar
  18. Johnstone, A. H. and Kellet, N. C. (1980). “Learning difficulties in school science-Towards a working hypothesis,” European Journal of Science Education, 2: 175–182.Google Scholar
  19. Kargbo, D. B., Hobbs, E. D. and Erickson, G. L. (1980). “Children's beliefs about inherited characteristics,” Journal of Biological Education, 14: 137–146.Google Scholar
  20. Karplus, R. (1977). “Science teaching and the development of reasoning,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14: 169–175.Google Scholar
  21. Karplus, R. and Stage, E. K. (1981). “Misconceptions in Science: Past Work and Present Approaches,” Group in Science and Mathematics Education, University of California, Berkeley, California, 94720.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lefrere, P. (1981). “Making use of the knowledge you have,” Instructional Science, 10: 1–4.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, B. N. (1981). “An essay on error,” Instructional Science, 10: 237–257.Google Scholar
  25. Marton, F. (1981). “Phenomenography — deseribing conceptions of the world around us,” Instructional Science, 10: 177–200.Google Scholar
  26. McClosky, M., Caramazza, A. and Green, B. (1980). “Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs about motion of objects,” Science, 210: 1139–1141.Google Scholar
  27. Niesser, U. (1976). Cognition and Reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  28. Norman, D. A. (1980). “Twelve issues for cognitive science,” Cognitive Science, 4: 1–32.Google Scholar
  29. Norman, H. F. and Clement, J. L. (1981). “Student misconceptions of an electric eircuit: What do they mean?” Journal of College Science Teaching, 10: 280–285.Google Scholar
  30. Novak, J. D. (1977). A Theory of Education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Novick, S. and Nussbaum, J. (1978) “Junior high school pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study,” Science Education, 62: 273–281.Google Scholar
  32. Novick, S. and Nussbaum, J. (1981). “Pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: a cross-age study,” Science Education, 65: 187–196.Google Scholar
  33. Nussbaum, J. (1979). “Children's conceptions of the Earth as a cosmic body: A cross-age study,” Science Education, 63: 83–93.Google Scholar
  34. Nussbaum, J. and Novick, S. (1982), “A Study of Conceptual Change in the Classroom,” paper presented at the NARST Meeting, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, April.Google Scholar
  35. Piaget, J. (1962). “Comments on Vigotsky's critical remarks,” in L. S. Vigotsky, Thought and Language, Cambridge: MIT Press and J. Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Piaget, J. (1964). “Development and learning,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2: 176–186.Google Scholar
  37. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. and Gertzog, W. A. (1981). “Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change,” Science Education, (in press).Google Scholar
  38. Rumelhart, D. E. and Ortony, A. (1977). “The representation of knowledge in memory,” in R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro and W. E. Montague, (eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  39. Suchman, J. R. (1962). The Elementary School Training Program in Scientific Inquiry. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  40. Toulmin, S. E. and Goodfield, J. (1962). The Architecture of Matter. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  41. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Viennot, L. (1979), “Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics,” European Journal of Science Education, 1: 205–221.Google Scholar
  43. Wittrock, M. C. (1977). “Learning as a generative process,” in M. C. Wittrock, (ed.), Learning and Instruction. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, pp. 621–631.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Nussbaum
    • 1
  • Shimshon Novick
    • 1
  1. 1.The Israel Science Teaching CentreThe Hebrew University of JerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations