Discussion, debate and dialog: changing minds about conceptual change research in science education

Forum

Abstract

This paper provides a critical commentary on a suite of eight papers, which focus on conceptual change research in science education. Responses by Mercer, Smardon and Wells to a paper by Treagust and Duit are observed to reflect the backgrounds of the three authors with Wells focusing on issues of ontology and the affective domain. Mercer and Smardon focus on issues of identity and the role of dialog. Hewson’s, Vosniadou’s and Tiberghien’s responses to Roth, Lee and Hwang offer robust critique of what appear to be exploratory ideas. To what extent the authors of the response papers enter into dialog with the papers is discussed. How far research into learning in science has progressed since the 1980s is examined.

Keywords

Conceptual change Teaching Learning Dialog Modeling 

References

  1. Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, J., Giesen, B., & Mast, J. (Eds.) (2006). Social performance: symbolic action, cultural pragmatics and ritual. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, R. (1990). Group processes. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, A. L., Metz, K. E., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Social interaction and individual understanding in a community of learners: The influence of Piaget, Vygotsky. In A. Tryphon & J. Vonèche (Eds.), Piaget–Vygotsky: The social genesis of thought (pp. 145–170). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Eiser, J. R., & van der Pligt, J. (1988) Attitudes and decisions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. General Teaching Council for England. (2003). ‘Social interaction as a means of constructing learning: the impact of Lev Vygotsky’s ideas on teaching and learning’ a summary produced by the http://www.gtce.org.uk/research/romtopics/rom_teachingandlearning/vygotsky_dec03/).
  13. Grubb, N., & Lazerson, M. (2004). The Education Gospel: The economic power of schooling. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Head, J. (1985). The personal response to science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howe, C. J., Rodgers, C., & Tolmie, A. (1990). Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction and the understanding of floating and sinking. European Journal of Psychology of Education, V, 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howe, C. J., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1992). The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children: Group interaction and the understanding of motion down an inclined plane. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 113–130.Google Scholar
  18. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  19. Lemke, J. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Mercer, N. (2007). Commentary on the reconciliation of cognitive and socio-cultural accounts of conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 42, 75–78.Google Scholar
  22. Mercer, N., Dawes, R., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Milner, M. (2004). Freaks, geeks and cool kids: American teenagers, schools, and the culture of consumption. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Mortimer, E. F. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science & Education, 4, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  27. Pines, A. L. (1985). Toward a taxonomy of conceptual relations. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 101–116). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pugh, A. (2004). Windfall childrearing: Low-income care and consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 4, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sensevy, G. (2007). Des catégories pour décrire et comprendre l’action didactique. In G. Sensevy & A. Mercier (Eds.), Agir ensemble: Eléments de théorisation de l’action conjointe du professeur et des élèves (pp. 13–49). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes (PUR).Google Scholar
  31. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Watson, J. R., Prieto, T., & Dillon, J. S. (1997). Consistency of students’ ideas about combustion. Science Education, 81, 425–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A socio-cultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85–100). Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science & Technology Education GroupKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations