Research in Science Education

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 943–965 | Cite as

An Explanation for the Difficulty of Leading Conceptual Change Using a Counterintuitive Demonstration: The Relationship Between Cognitive Conflict and Responses

  • Gyoungho LeeEmail author
  • Taejin Byun


Bringing successful teaching approaches for stimulating conceptual change to normal classrooms has been a major challenge not only for teachers but also for researchers. In this study, we focused on the relationship between cognitive conflict and responses to anomalous data when students are confronted with a counterintuitive demonstration in the form of a discrepant event. The participants in this study were 96 secondary school students (9th grade) from S. Korea. We investigated students’ preconceptions of motion by administering a written test. After the exam, we presented a demonstration that may have conflicted with the ideas held by students. We then investigated the relationship between students’ cognitive conflict and responses to anomalous data by using a Cognitive Conflict Level Test (CCLT). Results showed that cognitive conflict initiated the first step in the process of conceptual change. Anxiety was an especially crucial component of cognitive conflict, affecting the relationship between cognitive conflict and students’ responses. In addition, superficial conceptual change was found to be the most common response.


Cognitive conflict Conceptual change Responses to anomalous data 


  1. Alvermann, D. E., & Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: effects of prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Education Research, 82, 197–202.Google Scholar
  2. Bodrakova, W. V. (1988). The role of external and cognitive conflict in children’s conservation learning. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  3. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Kloper, L. E. (1985). Instructional consequences of students’ knowledge about physical phenomena. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 61–90). Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, 1–49.Google Scholar
  7. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cizek, G. J., & Burg, S. S. (2006). Addressing test anxiety in a high-stakes environment: Strategies for classrooms and schools. Callifornia: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  9. Damon, W., & Killen, M. (1982). Peer interaction and the process of change in children’s moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 347–367.Google Scholar
  10. Dekkers, P. J. J. M., & Thijs, G. D. (1998). Making productive use of students’ initial conceptions in developing the concept of force. Science Education, 82, 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the “cognitive conflict” strategy for conceptual change–some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74, 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Druyan, S. (1997). Effect of the kinesthetic conflict on promoting scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1083–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elizabeth, L., & Galloway, D. (1996). Conceptual links between cognitive acceleration through science education and motivational style: a critique of Adey and Shyer. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  17. Gorsky, P., & Finegold, M. (1994). The role of anomaly and of cognitive dissonance in restructuring students’ concepts of force. Instructional Science, 22, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, suppl. 68, 52–59.Google Scholar
  19. Hashweh, M. Z. (1986). Toward an explanation of conceptual change. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haws, L., & Kiser, T. (1995). Exploring the Brachistochrone problem. American Mathematical Monthly, 102, 308–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hennessey, M. G. (1999, March). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the 1999 NARST Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hewson, P. W., & Thorley, N. R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 35–49.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: controversy and Learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51–70.Google Scholar
  26. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexaming the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34, 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T., & Koh, H. (2005). The influence of students’ cognitive and motivational variables in respect of cognitive conflict and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1037–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kang, H., Scharmann, L. C., Kang, S., & Noh, T. (2010). Cognitive conflict and situational interest as factors influencing conceptual change. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5, 383–405.Google Scholar
  29. Kwon, J. (1989). A cognitive model of conceptual change in science learning. Physics Teaching (written in Korean), 7, 1–9.Google Scholar
  30. Kwon, J. (1997, May). The necessity of cognitive conflict strategy in science teaching. Paper presented at the International Conference on Science Education: Globalization of Science Education, Seoul, S. Korea.Google Scholar
  31. Langfield-Smith, K. (1994). Cognitive map. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Human behaviour (pp. 647–653). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (1999). Students’ responses confronted with discrepant situation patterns about inertia concept. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 19(4), 516–527.Google Scholar
  33. Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S., Kim, J., Kwon, H., & Park, H. (2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 585–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee, G., Shin, J., Park, J., Song, S., Kim, Y., & Bao, L. (2005). An integrated theoretical structure of mental models: Toward understanding how students form their ideas about science. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 25(6), 698–709.Google Scholar
  35. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lin, J. (2007). Responses to anomalous data obtained from repeatable experiments in the laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 506–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mason, L. (2000). Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle school students’ theory change about two controversial topics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mason, L. (2001). Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change. Learning and Instruction, 11, 453–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matthew, M. R. (1999). Social constructivism and mathematics education: some comments. Philosophy of Education, 330–341.Google Scholar
  40. McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & Somers, M. D. (1994). Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: an illustration in the context of the Atwood’s machine. American Journal of Physics, 62, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mildenhall, P. T., & Williams, F. S. (2001). Instability in students’ use of intuitive and Newtonian models to predict motion: the critical effect of the parameters involved. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 643–660.Google Scholar
  42. Mischel, T. (1971). Piaget: Cognitive conflict and the motivation of thought. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology (pp. 311–355). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  43. Misiti, F. L., & Shrigley, R. L. (1994). The role of cognitive dissonance on the science attitudes of middle school students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404109).Google Scholar
  44. Mortimer, E. F., & Machado, A. H. (2000). Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse. Science Education, 84, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murray, F. B. (1983). Equilibration as cognitive conflict. Developmental Review, 3, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murray, F. B., Ames, G., & Botvin, G. (1977). The acquisition of conservation through cognitive dissonance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 519–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Niaz, M. (1995). Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems: a dialectic-constructivist perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 959–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Niaz, M. (2001). Response to contradiction: conflict resolution strategies used by students in solving problems of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Niaz, M. (2006). Facilitating chemistry teachers’ understanding of alternative interpretations of conceptual change. Interchange, 37, 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structure: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: U of Chicago.Google Scholar
  52. 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, 221–227.Google Scholar
  53. Rosenquist, M. L., & McDermott, L. C. (1987). A conceptual approach to teaching kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sigel, I. E. (1979). On becoming a thinker: a psychoeducational model. Educational psychologist, 14, 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smedslund, J. (1961). The acquisition of conservation of substance and weight in children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2, 156–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stinner, A. (1994). The story of force: from Aristotle to Einstein. Physics Education, 29, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strauss, S. (1972). Inducing cognitive development and learning: a review of short-term training experiments. Cognition, 1, 329–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thorley, N. R., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Conflict within dyadic interactions as a stimulant for conceptual change in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Treagust, D. F., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptial change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 49, 242–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trumper, R. (1997). Applying conceptual conflict strategies in the learning of the energy concept. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tsai, C. (2000). Enhancing science instruction: the use of “conflict maps”. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: a psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  67. West, L. H. T., & Pines, A. L. (1985). Cognitive structure and conceptual change. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  68. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. R. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurological Psychology, 18, 459–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zimmerman, B. J., & Blom, D. E. (1983). Toward an empirical test of the role of cognitive conflict in learning. Developmental Reviews, 3, 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zohar, A., & Aharon-Kravetsky, S. (2005). Exploring the effects of cognitive conflict and direct teaching for students of different academic levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 829–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physics Education, College of EducationSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations