Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 1463–1483 | Cite as

Students’ Conceptions as Dynamically Emergent Structures

  • David E. BrownEmail author
Article

Abstract

There is wide consensus that learning in science must be considered a process of conceptual change rather than simply information accrual. There are three perspectives on students’ conceptions and conceptual change in science that have significant presence in the science education literature: students’ ideas as misconceptions, as coherent systems of conceptual elements, and as fragmented knowledge elements. If misconceptions, systems of elements, or fragments are viewed implicitly as “regular things”, these perspectives are in opposition. However, from a complex dynamic systems perspective, in which students’ conceptions are viewed as dynamically emergent structures, the oppositions are lessened, and the integrated view has significant implications for theory and practice.

Keywords

Conceptual Change Conceptual Metaphor Knowledge Element Conceptual Element Emergent Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I want to thank Stella Vosniadou, Andy diSessa, and David Hammer, for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

References

  1. Amin, T. G. (2009). Conceptual metaphor meets conceptual change. Human Development, 52(3), 165–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Self-organization in conceptual growth: Practical implications. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 504–519). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, D. E. (1989). Students’ concept of force: The importance of understanding Newton’s third law. Physics Education, 24(6), 353–358.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 17–34.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D. E. (1993). Refocusing core intuitions: A concretizing role for analogy in conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1273–1290.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, D. E. (2000). Merging dynamics: An integrating perspective on learning, conceptual change, and teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, D. E. (2010). Students’ conceptions—coherent or fragmented? And what difference does it make? Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18(4), 237–261.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2013). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, (2nd ed., pp. 121–137). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. K. Scholnick, K. Nelson, & P. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget’s Legacy (pp. 293–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheng, M., & Brown, D. E. (2010). Conceptual resources in self-developed explanatory models: The importance of integrating conscious and intuitive knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2367–2392.Google Scholar
  14. Cheng, M., & Brown, D. E. (2012). The role of metacognition in students’ development of explanatory ideas of magnetism. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, D., & Jorde, D. (2004). Helping students revise disruptive experientially supported ideas about thermodynamics: Computer visualizations and tactile models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Schleigh, S. P. (2011). Comparison of students’ knowledge structure coherence and understanding of force in the Philippines, Turkey, China, Mexico, and the United States. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 207–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2013). The knowledge integration perspective: Connections across research and education. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 520–538). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clement, J. J., & Brown, D. E. (2008). Using analogies and models in instruction to deal with students’ preconceptions. In J. J. Clement (Ed.), Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students: The role of analogy, imagery, and mental simulation (pp. 139–155). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Clement, J. J., & Steinberg, M. S. (2002). Step-wise evolution of mental models of electric circuits: A “learning-aloud” case study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 389–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dagher, Z. (1998). The case for analogies in teaching science for understanding. In J. Mintzes, Wandersee, J., Novak, J. (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding (pp. 195–211). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dega, B. G., Kriek, J., & Mogese, T. F. (2013). Students’ conceptual change in electricity and magnetism using simulations: A comparison of cognitive perturbation and cognitive conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 677–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. diSessa, A. A. (2008). A birds-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 35–60). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. diSessa, A. A. (2013). A birds-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change, (2nd ed., pp. 31–48). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, Ind.: National Education Service.Google Scholar
  31. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography–STCSE. Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education (http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/download_stcse.html).
  32. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3), 455–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (2004). Mechanisms of theory-formation in young children. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257–293). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gutwill, J. P., Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1999). Making their own connections: Students’ understanding of multiple models in basic electricity. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 249–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 97–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hawkins, D. (1962). Messing about in science. Science and Children, 2(5), 39–44.Google Scholar
  40. Hofstadter, D. R. (2001). Analogy as the core of cognition. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 499–538). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2, 5–61.Google Scholar
  42. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence; an essay on the construction of formal operational structures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Khine, M. S., & Saleh, I. M. (Eds.). (2011). Models and modeling: Cognitive tools for scientific enquiry. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 143–178.Google Scholar
  46. Koponen, I. T., & Pehkonen, M. (2010). Coherent knowledge structures of physics represented as concept networks in teacher education. Science & Education, 19(3), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Leander, K., & Brown, D. E. (1999). “You understand, but you don't believe it”: Tracing the stabilities and instabilities of interaction in a physics classroom through a multidimensional framework. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 93–135.Google Scholar
  51. Lewis, C., Pery, R., Hurd, J., & O’Connell, M. P. (2006). Lesson study comes of age in North America. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 273–281.Google Scholar
  52. Li, S. C., Law, N., & Lui, K. F. A. (2006). Cognitive perturbation through dynamic modelling: A pedagogical approach to conceptual change in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Manson, S. M. (2001). Simplifying complexity: A review of complexity theory. Geoforum, 32, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Panagiotaki, G., Nobes, G., & Banerjee, R. (2006). Children’s representations of the earth: A methodological comparison. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24(2), 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  58. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rusanen, A.-M., & Pöyhönen, S. (2012). Concepts in change. Science & Education, 22(6), 1389–1403. doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9489-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schneps, M. H., & Crouse, L. (2002). A private universe: Misconceptions that block learning [videorecording]. S. Burlington, Vt.: Annenberg/CPB.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.Google Scholar
  64. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  65. Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Thelen, E., & Bates, E. (2003). Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science, 6(4), 378–391.Google Scholar
  67. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Towers, J., & Davis, B. (2002). Structuring occasions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. T., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  70. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning & Instruction, 4, 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naïve physics. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  72. Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 11–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ch. 1 & 3.Google Scholar
  77. Wilensky, U. (2010). Netlogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL. Available at http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/.
  78. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 267–298). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  80. Yates, J., Bessman, M., Dunne, M., Jertson, D., Sly, K., & Wendelboe, B. (1988). Are conceptions of motion based on a naive theory or on prototypes? Cognition, 29, 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations