Concepts in Change

Abstract

In this article we focus on the concept of concept in conceptual change. We argue that (1) theories of higher learning must often employ two different notions of concept that should not be conflated: psychological and scientific concepts. The usages for these two notions are partly distinct and thus straightforward identification between them is unwarranted. Hence, the strong analogy between scientific theory change and individual learning should be approached with caution. In addition, we argue that (2) research in psychology and cognitive science provides a promising theoretical basis for developing explanatory mechanistic models of conceptual change. Moreover, we argue that (3) arguments against deeper integration between the fields of psychology and conceptual change are not convincing, and that recent theoretical developments in the cognitive sciences might prove indispensable in filling in the details in mechanisms of conceptual change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Strike and Posner (1982), Carey (1985), Posner et al. (1982), Thagard (1990), Chi (1992), Chi et al. (1994), Vosniadou and Brewer (1992).

  2. 2.

    See Strike and Posner (1982), Posner et al. (1982), Chi (1992), Vosniadou and Brewer (1992).

  3. 3.

    See also Lappi (2011) for a similar analysis.

  4. 4.

    Since the rejection of the classical view of concepts in the 1970s, there have been three main approaches to concepts; the prototype view, the exemplar view, and the theory theory view of concepts. According to the prototype theory, concepts have a probabilistic structure. A concept of a class of objects is a prototype, a representation that contains statistical information about the properties possessed by (most of) the members of the class. On the contrary, the exemplar view considers concepts as representations of specific members of a category. These exemplars are thought to stand for the whole category. According to the theorytheory view, mental representations are similar to scientific theories and mental cognitive processes are analogical to scientific reasoning. Concepts are considered as embedded in theories about certain domains, as bodies of knowledge that contain causal, nomological, and functional generalizations about the corresponding categories (cf. Murphy 2004).

  5. 5.

    Depending on the theory, the units of conceptual change differ. For example, in diSessas account the units of conceptual change are the coordination classes that organize information at the sub-conceptual level (diSessa and Sherin 1998, diSessa 1988, 1993). In Frank Keil’s (1994) theory a similar role is played by modes of construal, and Stella Vosniadou (1992) employs the term ‘framework.’

  6. 6.

    Curiously, a very similar view of nature was characteristic of classic Aristotelian and scholastic science. It was thought that all entities in reality had a place in a grand hierarchy of things called the tree of porphyry, and that it was the aim of science to uncover this true order of nature. In ninetieth century post-Darwinian biology, and consequently in other fields of science, the rise of population thinking lead to permanent abandonment of this essentialist view of nature, as it turned out that phenomena in nature could not be organized into such a hierarchical system (Hacking 2006). This suggests that Chi’s early hierarchical ontologies cannot present a generally accurate view of the functioning of scientific concepts.

  7. 7.

    Susan Carey’s (2009) work is one of the few examples of conceptual change research that explicitly aims to uncover the psychological mechanisms underlying conceptual change.

  8. 8.

    It is not completely clear, how to define the notion of “cognitive mechanism” (see Lappi and Rusanen 2011). Lappi and Rusanen suggest that in some cases explanatory models in cognitive science may contain non-implemented, abstract mechanisms.

References

  1. Barsalou, L. W. (1990). On the indistinguishability of exemplar memory and abstraction in category representation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition, volume III: Content and process specificity in the effects of prior experiences (pp. 61–88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. (1993). Discovering complexity, decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bishop, M., & Downes, S. (2002). The theory theory thrice over: The child as scientist, Superscientist or social institution? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 2002(33), 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind (pp. 257–291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  6. Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  8. Carruthers, P., Stich, S., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (2002). The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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. 129–186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Clement, J. (2008). The role of explanatory models in teaching for conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research in conceptual change (pp. 417–452). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Craver, C. F. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153, 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: What a science of the mind-brain could be. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dietrich, E., & Markman, A. B. (2003). Discrete thoughts: Why cognition must use discrete representations. Mind and Language, 18(1), 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  17. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2, 3), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265–281). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Downes, S. (1999). Can scientific development and children’s cognitive development be the same process? Philosophy of Science, 66, 565–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fuller, T. (2011). Is scientific theory change similar to early cognitive development? Gopnik on science and childhood. Philosophical Psychology, forthcoming.

  22. Gelman, S. A., & Coley, J. D. (1991). Language and categorization: The acquisition of natural kind terms. In S. A. Gelman & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development (pp. 146–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  23. Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R. W., Wolff, P., Markman, A. B., & Forbus, K. D. (1997). Analogy and creativity in the works of Johannes Kepler. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 403–459). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goodman, N. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., Feldman, J., & Griffiths, T. L. (2008). A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science, 32(1), 108–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gopnik, A. (2011). Probabilistic models as theories of children’s minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(4), 200–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. (1997). Words, thoughts and theories. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Griffiths, T. L., Christian, B. R., & Kalish, M. L. (2008). Using category structures to test iterated learning as a method for identifying inductive biases. Cognitive Science, 32(1), 68–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hacking, I. (2006). Des classifications naturelles (pp. 422–430). lectures at College de France. http://www.college-de-france.fr/media/historique/UPL17441_ihackingcours0506.pdf.

  29. Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Keil, F. C. (1994). The birth and nurturance of concepts by domains: The origins of concepts of living things. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science. Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Koponen, I., & Pehkonen, M. (2010). Coherent knowledge structures of physics represented as concept networks in teacher education. Science & Education, 19, 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lappi, O. (2011). How not to study conceptual change. In F. Seroglou, V. Koulountzos & A. Siatras (Eds.) The Proceedings of 11th International IHPST and 6th Greek History, Philosophy of Science Teaching Joint Conference, Epikentro Publishers.

  35. Lappi, O., & Rusanen, A.-M. (2011). Turing machines and causal mechanisms in cognitive science. In P. McKay Illari, F. Russo, & J. Williamson (Eds.), Causality in the sciences (pp. 224–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  36. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Murphy, G. L. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nazer, D., Ruby, A., Nichols, S., Weinberg, J., Stich, S., Faucher, L., et al. (2002). The baby in the lab-coat: Why child development is not an adequate model for understanding the development of science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Seagal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 335–362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Osherson, D., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., & López, A. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97(2), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26, 521–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Smith, E., Langston, C., & Nisbett, R. E. (1992). The case for rules of reasoning. Cognitive Science, 16, 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sobel, D., Tenenbaum, J., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Children’s causal inferences from indirect evidence: Backwards blocking and Bayesian reasoning in preschoolers. Cognitive Science, 28(3), 303–333.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1982). Conceptual change and science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tenenbaum, J., & Griffiths, T. (2001). Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 629–641.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Thagard, P. (1990). Concepts and conceptual change. Synthese, 82, 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. van Gelder, T., & Port, R. (1995). It’s about time: Overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In R. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 1–43). Cambridge: Bradford Books/MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41(4), 347–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research: State of the art and future directions. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 3–13). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Weisberg, M., & Muldoon, R. (2008). Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 76, 225–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. A theory of causal explanation. Oxford University Press.

  55. Zollman, K. (2007). The communication structure of epistemic communities. Philosophy of Science, 74(5), 574–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Otto Lappi, Petri Ylikoski and the anonymous referees for useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna-Mari Rusanen.

Additional information

Both authors contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rusanen, A., Pöyhönen, S. Concepts in Change. Sci & Educ 22, 1389–1403 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9489-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cognitive Science
  • Conceptual Change
  • Scientific Concept
  • Cognitive Mechanism
  • Cognitive Architecture