Advertisement

How Students Combine Resources to Make Conceptual Breakthroughs

  • A. J. Richards
  • Darrick C. Jones
  • Eugenia Etkina
Article

Abstract

We use the framework of cognitive resources to investigate how students construct understanding of a complex physics topic, namely, a photovoltaic cell. By observing students as they learn about how a solar cell functions, we identified over 60 distinct resources that learners may activate while thinking about photovoltaic cells. We classify these resources into three main types: phenomenological primitives, conceptual resources, and epistemological resources. Furthermore, we found a pattern that suggests that when students make conceptual breakthroughs they may be more likely to activate combinations of resources of different types in concert, especially if a resource from each of the three categories is used. This pattern suggests that physics instructors should encourage students to activate multiple types of prior knowledge during the learning process. This can result from instructors deliberately and explicitly connecting new knowledge to students’ prior experience both in and outside the formal physics classroom, as well as allowing students to reflect metacognitively on how the new knowledge fits into their existing understanding of the natural world.

Keywords

Cognitive resources Advanced undergraduate Physics Solar cells 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to David Hammer for his help with the manuscript.

References

  1. Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2009). Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: epistemological framing via warrants. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2008). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 127–154). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conlin, L. D., Gupta, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Framing and resource activation: bridging the cognitive-situative divide using a dynamic unit of cognitive analysis. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, 32(32), 19–24.Google Scholar
  5. DiSessa, A. A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: a study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6(1), 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DiSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiSessa, A. A. (2015). Alternative conceptions and P-prims. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 34–37). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Disessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engelhardt, P. V., Corpuz, E. G., Ozimek, D. J., & Rebello, N. S. (2004, September). The teaching experiment—what it is and what it isn’t. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 720, No. 1, pp. 157–160). AIP.Google Scholar
  11. Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. F. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 285–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985a). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985b). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: how may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 68(S1), S52–S59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–119). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Harrer, B. W., Flood, V. J., & Wittmann, M. C. (2013). Productive resources in students’ ideas about energy: an alternative analysis of Watts’ original interview transcripts. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 9(2), 023101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education, 15(2), 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heron, P. R., Shaffer, P. S., & McDermott, L. C. (2004, April). Research as a guide to improving student learning: an example from introductory physics. In Invention and Impact, Proceedings of a Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement Conference, AAAS.Google Scholar
  22. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2016). Identifying pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions and conceptual difficulties about geometrical optics. European Journal of Physics, 37(4), 045705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lai, T. L., & Land, S. M. (2009). Supporting reflection in online learning environments. In M. Orey et al. (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 34, pp. 141–154). US: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  26. Lising, L., & Elby, A. (2005). The impact of epistemology on learning: a case study from introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 73(4), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. May, D. B., & Etkina, E. (2002). College physics students’ epistemological self- reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning. American Journal of Physics, 70, 1249–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Understanding conceptual change: a commentary. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice (pp. 101–111). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nasr, R., Hall, S. R., & Garik, P. (2003, November). Student misconceptions in signals and systems and their origins. In Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003 33rd Annual (Vol. 1, pp. T2E-23). IEEE.Google Scholar
  34. Novak, J. D. (1977). A theory of education. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Powell, A. B., Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 405–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Redish, E. F. (2014). Oersted lecture 2013: how should we think about how our students think? American Journal of Physics, 82, 537–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richards, A. J. (2013). How students combine resources to build understanding of complex topics (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from ProQuest, LLC.Google Scholar
  38. Richards, A. J., & Etkina, E. (2013). Kinaesthetic learning activities and learning about solar cells. Physics Education, 48(5), 578–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roschelle, J. (1997). Learning in interactive environments: prior knowledge and new experience. In J. Falk & L. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for public learning (pp. 37–54). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
  40. Sayre, E. C., & Wittmann, M. C. (2008). Plasticity of intermediate mechanics students’ coordinate system choice. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 4(2), 020105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneps, M., & Sadler, P. M. (1989). A private universe [Video]. Santa Monica, CA: Pyramid Film and Video.Google Scholar
  43. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  44. Smith III, J. P., Disessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17), 137–146.Google Scholar
  46. Taber, K. S. (2008). Conceptual resources for learning science: issues of transience and grain-size in cognition and cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1027–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taber, K. S., de Trafford, T., & Quail, T. (2006). Conceptual resources for constructing the concepts of electricity: the role of models, analogies and imagination. Physics Education, 41(2), 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thaden-Koch, T. C. (2003). A coordination class analysis of college students’ judgments about animated motion. (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from University of Nebraska - Lincoln.Google Scholar
  49. Wittmann, M. C. (2002). The object coordination class applied to wave pulses: analysing student reasoning in wave physics. International Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wittmann, M. C. (2006). Using resource graphs to represent conceptual change. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2(2), 020105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: enriching teaching by exploring the biology of learning. LLC: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The College of New JerseyEwingUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations