Abstract
This study investigated students’ responses to presentations of experimental results that conflicted with their preconceptions regarding electric circuits, and how those responses varied according to the type of inquiry skills required to obtain the results. One hundred and twenty students of both sexes were randomly selected from a science high school in Korea. They were questioned about their preconceptions regarding an electric circuit and forty-two students with relevant misconceptions were selected. The students were randomly assigned to two groups, and presented with one of two sheets of paper presenting results obtained by a fictional investigator. The first group was presented with results that were obtained by simple observation and asked for their evaluation of them. The second group was presented with a set of results that were obtained by controlling variables, and asked to draw a conclusion and to evaluate it. Students’ responses were classified into two categories. Some students rejected their own preconceptions and introduced a new explanatory model when contradictory results were presented, and others denied the results for the simple reason that they conflicted with their preconceptions, or only modified a protective belt without changing their core of preconceptions. We found that this distribution of responses varied considerably by inquiry skill type. For the results obtained by controlling variables, almost all students accepted them and changed their preconceptions, but for the results obtained by simple observation, fifty-five percent of students preserved their own preconceptions by denying the contradictory results or modifying the protective belt.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chalmers, A. F. (1986).What is this thing called science? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students preconceptions in physics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257.
Driver, R. (1983).The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Dykstra, D., Boyle, C., & Monarch, I. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics.Science Education, 76(6), 615–652.
Gauld, C. (1986). Models, meters and memory.Research in Science Education, 16, 49–54.
Gauld, C. (1989). A study of pupils’ responses to empirical evidence. In R. Millar (Ed.),Doing science: Image of science education (pp. 62–82). London: The Falmer Press.
Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Constructivism and metacognition: Theoretical issues and classroom studies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.),Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 129–140). Kiel: IPN.
Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional toolScience Education, 77(1), 95–111.
Kim, I. (1991).College students’ conceptual change about force and acceleration through critical discussion of the rival concepts based on evidences and reflective thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University, Korea.
Kim, I., & Park, J. (1995, July).The students’ response on the conflict observation, data and results in electricity experiment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), Bendigo, Australia.
Kim, Y. (1991).Effects of instruction using systematic analogies on change of middle school Students’ conceptions of electric current. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University, Korea.
Lakatos, I. (1994). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In J. Worralland, & G. Currie (Eds.),The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1) (pp. 8–101). Cambridge University Press.
Lord, C., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased, assimilation and attitude polarisation: The effect of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.
Park, J. (1992).The role of metacognition in the changes of basic concepts about relativity, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University, Korea.
Park, J., & Pak, S. (1997). Students’ responses to experimental evidence based on perceptions of causality and availability of evidence.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 57–67.
Popper, K. R. (1968).The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 503–534.
SAPA II (1990).Science—A process approach II. Hudson, NH: Delta Education.
Shadish, W., & Neimeyer, R. (1989). Contributions of psychology to an integrative science studies: The shape of things to come. In S. Fuller, M. De Mey, T. Shinn, & S. Woolgar (Eds.),The cognitive turn: Sociological and psychological perspectives on science (pp. 13–38). London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Shepardson, D., Moje, E., & Kennard-McClelland, A. (1994). The impact of a science demonstration on children’s understandings of air pressure.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 243–258.
Shipstone, D. (1989). Electricity in simple circuits, In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.),Children’s ideas in science (pp. 33–51). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Stavy, R. (1991). Using analogy to overcome misconceptions about conservation of matter.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 305–313.
Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. West & A. Pines (Eds.),Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211–231). New York: Academic Press.
White, R., & Mitchell, I. (1994). Metacognition and the quality of learning.Studies in Science Education, 23, 21–37.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, J., Kim, I. Analysis of student’s responses to contradictory results obtained by simple observation or controlling variables. Research in Science Education 28, 365–376 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461569
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461569