Science & Education

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 305–317 | Cite as

The Relation of Story Structure to a Model of Conceptual Change in Science Learning

  • Stephen Klassen


Although various reasons have been proposed to explain the potential effectiveness of science stories to promote learning, no explicit relationship of stories to learning theory in science has been propounded. In this paper, two structurally analogous models are developed and compared: a structural model of stories and a temporal conceptual change model of learning. On the basis of the similarity of the models, as elaborated, it is proposed that the structure of science stories may promote a re-enactment of the learning process, and, thereby, such stories serve to encourage active learning through the generation of hypotheses and explanations. The practical implications of this theoretical analogy can be applied to the classroom in that the utilization of stories provides the opportunity for a type of re-enactment of the learning process that may encourage both engagement with the material and the development of long-term memory structures.


Conceptual Change Propositional Knowledge Abductive Inference Good Story Temporal Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author thanks Arthur Stinner for insightful discussions that contributed to the writing of this paper. Funding provided by the University of Winnipeg and Canada’s NSERC CRYSTAL centre at the University of Manitoba has supported the researching and writing of this paper. Appreciation is also due to Carly Scramstad for her invaluable assistance with the final revision of the paper.


  1. Arntzenius, F. (1995). A heuristic for conceptual change. Philosophy of Science, 62, 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bremond, C. (1980). The logic of narrative possibilities. New Literary History, 11, 387–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carey, S. (1996). Science education as conceptual change. Paper presented for the Committee on developments in the science of learning for the sciences of science learning: An interdisciplinary discussion, New York University, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  7. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Ungar, C. (1990). An experiment is when you try and see if it works. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science—from behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Egan, K. (1978). What is a plot? New Literary History, 9, 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egan, K. (1986). Teaching as story telling. London, Ontario: Althouse Press.Google Scholar
  11. Egan, K. (1989a). The shape of the science text: A function of stories. In S. de Castell, A. Luke, & C. Luke (Eds.), Language, authority and criticism: Readings on the school textbook (pp. 96–108). New York: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  12. Egan, K. (1989b). Memory, imagination, and learning: Connected by the story. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(6), 455–459.Google Scholar
  13. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schultz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Hanks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graesser, A., & Weimer-Hastings, K. (1999). Situation models and concepts in story comprehension. In S. Goldman, A. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality and coherence (pp. 77–92). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, 74, 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harnad, S. (1982). Neoconstructivism: A unifying constraint for the cognitive sciences. In T. Simon & R. Scholes (Eds.), Language, mind and brain (pp. 1–11). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Helstrand, A., & Ott, A. (1995). The utilization of fiction when teaching the theory of relativity. Physics Education, 30(5), 284–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383–396.Google Scholar
  19. Howard, P. J. (2000). The owner’s manual for the brain: Everyday applications from mind-brain research (2nd ed.). Austin: Bard Press.Google Scholar
  20. Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (1994). Abductive inference, computation philosophy, technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kenealy, P. (1989). Telling a coherent “Story”: A role for the history and philosophy of science in a physical science course. In D. E. Herget (Ed.), HPSST, Proceedings of the First International Conference, pp 209–220.Google Scholar
  22. Klassen, S. (2009). The construction and analysis of a science story: A proposed methodology. Science & Education, 18, 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kruckeberg, R. (2006). A Deweyan perspective on science education: Constructivism, experience, and why we learn science. Science & Education, 15, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kubli, F. (1999). Historical aspects in physics teaching: Using Galileo’s work in a New Swiss project. Science & Education, 8, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lin, H. (1998). The effectiveness of teaching chemistry through the history of science. J Chemical Education, 75(10), 1326–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Locke, D. (1992). Science as writing. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Macbeth, D. (2000). On an actual apparatus for conceptual change. Science Education, 84, 228–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Magie, W. F. (1965). A source book in physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin, W. (1986). Recent theories of narrative. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, B. E., & Brouwer, W. (1991). The sharing of personal science and the narrative element in science education. Science Education, 75(6), 707–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1984). What makes a good story? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(6), 457–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Metz, D., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., Clough, M., & Olson, J. (2007). Building a foundation for historical narratives. Science & Education, 16, 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Noddings, N., & Witherell, C. (1991). Epilogue: Themes remembered and foreseen. In C. Witherell & N. Noddings (Eds.), Stories lives tell (pp. 279–280). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Norris, S., Guilbert, M., Smith, M., Shahram, H., & Phillips, L. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ohlsson, S. (1992). The cognitive skill of theory articulation: A neglected aspect of science education? Science & Education, 1, 181–192.Google Scholar
  39. Ohlsson, S. (1999). Theoretical commitment and implicit knowledge: Why anomalies do not trigger learning. Science & Education, 8, 559–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ohlsson, S. (2002). Generating and understanding qualitative explanations. In A. Graesser, J. Leon, & J. Otero (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 91–128). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prince, G. (1973). A grammar of stories: An introduction. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  43. Reid, I. (1977). The short story. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.Google Scholar
  44. Romero, F., Paris, S. G., & Brem, S. (2005). Children’s comprehension and local-to-global recall of narrative and expository texts. Current Issues in Education 8(25): Available via Accessed 1 July 2009.
  45. Schwitzgebel, E. (1999). Children’s theories and the drive to explain. Science & Education, 8, 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Solomon, J. (2002). Science stories and science texts: What can they do for our students? Studies in Science Education, 37, 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stinner, A. (1990). Philosophy, thought experiments and large context problems in the secondary school physics course. International Journal of Science Education, 12(3), 244–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stinner, A. (1992). Contextual teaching in physics: From science stories to large—context problems. Alberta Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 20–29.Google Scholar
  50. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1982). Conceptual change and science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 231–240.Google Scholar
  51. Sutton, R. S. (1997). On the significance of Markov decision processes. In W. Gerstner, A. Germond, M. Hasler, & J. D. Nicoud (Eds.), Artificial neural networks—ICANN’97 (pp. 273–282). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wandersee, J. H. (1990). On the value and use of the history of science in teaching today’s science: Constructing historical vignettes. In D. E. Herget (Ed.), More history and philosophy of science in science teaching (pp. 278–283). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.Google Scholar
  54. Wandersee, J. H. (1992). The historicality of cognition: Implications for science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wandersee, J. H., & Roach, L. M. (1998). Interactive historical vignettes. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding (pp. 281–306). California: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York: McMillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WinnipegWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations