• Gyoungho LeeEmail author
  • Jinseog Yi


In this study, our basic contention was that it is essential for researchers to answer the question, “Where does cognitive conflict really arise from?” with more precision than has heretofore been attempted. First, we examined how the term “cognitive conflict” has been treated in the existing literature and try to pinpoint some difficulties, related to inexplicitness or imprecision. Second, we investigated the students’ resources that cause cognitive conflict in learning gravitational potential energy. Finally, we illustrated the structure of creating cognitive conflict by using a framework of knowledge and belief, and we explained how students locate their resources, interact with those resources, and so create cognitive conflict. We also discuss how identifying the structure of creating cognitive conflict helps us understand and address the issue of students’ cognitive conflicts.


conceptual change structure of creating cognitive conflict student resources 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies on Science Education, 27, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bisanz, J. & LeFevre, J. (1990). Strategic and nonstrategic processing in the development of mathematical cognition. In D. F. Bjorklund (Ed.), Children’s strategies: Contemporary views of cognitive development (pp. 213–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Black, K. & Wittmann, M. (2009). Procedural resource creation in intermediate mechanics. In Physics Education Research Conference, AIP conference proceedings (pp. 97–100).Google Scholar
  4. Chantor, G. N. (1983). Conflict, learning, and Piaget: Comments on Zimmerman and Blom’s “Toward an empirical test of the role of cognitive conflict in learning. Developmental Review, 3, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129–160). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M. T. H. & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limόn & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. de Jong, T. & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Demaree, D., Stonebraker, S., Zhao, W., & Bao, L. (2005). Virtual reality in introductory physics laboratories. In AIP Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, vol 790 (pp. 93–96).Google Scholar
  10. diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duit, R., Treagust, D. F. & Widodo, A. (2008). The conceptual change approach and the teaching of science. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 629–646). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Elby, A. & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etkina, E. (2000). Weekly reports: A two-way feedback tool. Science Education, 84, 594–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Gire, E. & Manogue, C. (2008). Resources students use to understand quantum mechanical operators. In AIP Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 115–118).Google Scholar
  17. Hammer, D. (1994). Students’ beliefs about conceptual knowledge in introductory physics. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammer, D. (1996). Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics. Science Education, 79, 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, supplement, 68, 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Harrison, A. G., Grayson, D. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigation a grade 11 student’s evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 259–275.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. Jones, B. F., Pierce, J. & Hunter, B. (1988–1989). Teaching students to construct graphic representations. Educational Leadership, 46, 20–25.Google Scholar
  25. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C. & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34, 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Langfield-Smith, K. (1994). Cognitive map. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Human behavior (pp. 647–653). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lee, G. (2007). Why do students have difficulties in learning physics? Toward a structural analysis of student difficulty via a framework of knowledge and belief. New Physics (The Journal of Korean Physical Society,) 54, 284–295.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, G., & Byun, T. (2011). An explanation for the difficulty of leading conceptual change using a counterintuitive demonstration: The relationship between cognitive conflict and responses. Research in Science Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9234-5
  30. 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, 585–603.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, G., Shin, J., Park, J., Song, S., Kim, Y., & Bao, L. (2004). Alternative conceptions, memory, & mental models in physics education. Physics Education Research Conference, AIP conference proceedings, 165–168.Google Scholar
  32. 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, 698–709.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Lising, L. & Elby, A. (2005). The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 73, 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Meredith, D. C. & Marrongelle, K. A. (2008). How students use mathematical resources in an electrostatics context. American Journal Physics, 76, 570–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the ‘at rest’ condition of an object. Physics Teacher, 20, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110–128). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Niaz, M. (2006). Facilitating chemistry teachers’ understanding of alternative interpretations of conceptual change. Interchange, 37, 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Novak, J. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implication of children’s science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinmann.Google Scholar
  45. Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structure: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  47. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 33–50). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  48. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W. & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M. & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66, 212–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reichertz, J. (2002). Objective hermeneutics and hermeneutic sociology of knowledge. In U. Flick, Ev Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative research: A handbook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Rittle-Johnson, B. & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 313–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saenz, C. (2009). The role of contextual, conceptual and procedural knowledge in activating mathematical competencies (PISA). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sigel, I. E. (1979). On becoming a thinker: A psychoeducational model. Educational Psychologist, 14, 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sinatra, G. M. (2002). Motivational, social, and contextual aspects of conceptual change: A commentary. In M. Limόn & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 187–197). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Symon, K. R. (1971). Mechanics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  57. Treagust, D. F. & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tuminaro, J. & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games. Physical Review Special Topic, Physics Education Research, 3, 020101-1-22.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations