Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 205–211

Response to Contradiction: Conflict Resolution Strategies Used by Students in Solving Problems of Chemical Equilibrium

  • Mansoor Niaz
Article

Abstract

The main objective of this investigation was to show that a novel problem of chemical equilibrium based on a closely related sequence of items can facilitate students' conceptual understanding. Students were presented a chemical reaction in equilibrium to which a reactant was added as an external effect. A series of three studies were designed. In Study 1, the sequence of items started with a major alternative conception, namely, “After the reaction has started, the rate of the forward reaction increases with time and that of the reverse reaction decreases, until equilibrium is reached.” In Study 2, the major alternative conception was presented the last. In Study 3, instead of the sequence, only the following statement was presented: “Rate of the reverse reaction increases gradually.” In all three studies students had to agree/disagree with the statements and provide justifications. Results obtained show that at least one group of students, in Study 1 used a contradictory response pattern based on the generation and resolution of a cognitive conflict, which facilitated conceptual understanding. In Studies 2 and 3 students did not experience a similar cognitive conflict. Given the complexity of conceptual change and students' resistance to alter their alternative conceptions (cf. hard core, Lakatos )1970) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 91–106), it is suggested that changes in students' responses may have undergone a Peripheral Theory Change (Chinn and Brewer (1993) Review of Educational Research 63: 1–49).

Cognitive conflict conceptual change alternative conceptions chemical equilibrium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bannerjee, A. C., and Power, C. N. (1991). The development of modules for the teaching of chemical equili¶rium. International Journal of Science Education 13: 355–362.Google Scholar
  2. Bergquist, W., and Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equili¶rium. Journal of Chemical Education 67: 1000–1003.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, D. E., and Clement, J. (1987). Misconceptions concerning Newton's law of action and reaction: The underestimed importance of the Third law. In Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Vol. 3, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, pp. 39–53.Google Scholar
  4. Bur¶ules, N. C., and Linn, M. C. (1988). Response to contradiction: Scientific reasoning during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 67–75.Google Scholar
  5. Camacho, M., and Good, R. (1989). Pro¶lem solving and chemical equili¶rium: Successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26: 251–272.Google Scholar
  6. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood, MIT Press, Cam¶ridge, MA.Google Scholar
  7. Chinn, C. A., and Brewer,W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research 63: 1–49.Google Scholar
  8. Duschl, R. A., and Gitomer, D. H. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28: 839–858.Google Scholar
  9. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, New York. HarperGoogle Scholar
  10. Furth, H. G. (1981). Piaget and Knowledge: Theoretical Foundations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. Glasersfeld, E. V. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese 80: 121–140.Google Scholar
  12. Gussarsky, E., and Gorodetsky, M. (1988). On the chemical equili¶rium concept. Constrained word associations and conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25: 319–333.Google Scholar
  13. Hackling, M. W., and Garnett,P. J. (1985). Misconceptions of chemical equili¶rium. European Journal of Science Education 7: 205–214.Google Scholar
  14. Hameed, H., Hackling, M. W., and Garnett, P. J. (1993). Facilitating conceptual change in chemical equili¶rium using a CAI strategy. International Journal of Science Education 15: 221–230.Google Scholar
  15. Hewson, P. W., and Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science 13: 1–13.Google Scholar
  16. Hewson, P. W., and Thorley, N. R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education 11: 541–553.Google Scholar
  17. Johnstone, A. H., MacDonald, J. J., and We¶¶, G. (1977). Chemical equili¶rium and its conceptual difficulties. Education in Chemistry 14: 169–171.Google Scholar
  18. Karmiloff-Smith, A., and Inhelder, B. (1976). If you want to get ahead, get a theory. Cognition 3: 195–212.Google Scholar
  19. Kitchener, R. F. (1986). Piaget's Theory of Knowledge: Genetic Epistemology and Scientific Reason, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  20. Kitchener, R. F. (1987). Genetic epistemology, equili¶ration, and the rationality of scientific change. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 18: 339–366.Google Scholar
  21. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I., and Musgrave, A. (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cam¶ridge, UK, Cam¶ridge University Press, pp. 91–196.Google Scholar
  22. Levin, I., and Druyan, S. (1993). When sociocognitive transaction among peers fails: The case of misconceptions in science. Child Development 64: 1571–1591.Google Scholar
  23. Levin, I., Siegler, R. S., and Druyan, S. (1990a). Misconceptions a¶out motion: Development and training effects. Child Development 61: 1544–1557.Google Scholar
  24. Levin, I., Siegler, R. S., Druyan, S., and Gardosh, R. (1990¶). Everyday and curriculum ¶ased physics concepts: When does short-term training ¶ring change where years of schooling have failed to do so? British Journal of Developmental Psychology 8: 269–279.Google Scholar
  25. Maskill, R., and Cachapuz, A. F. C. (1989). Learning a¶out the chemistry topic of equili¶rium: The use of word association tests to detect developing conceptualizations. International Journal of Science Education 11: 57–69.Google Scholar
  26. Mischel, T. (1971). Piaget: Cognitive conflict and the motivation of thought. In Mischel, T. (Ed.), Cognitive Development and Epistemology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 311–355.Google Scholar
  27. Niaz, M. (1995a). Chemical equili¶rium and Newton's third law of motion: Ontogeny/phylogeny revisited. Interchange 26: 19–32.Google Scholar
  28. Niaz, M. (1995¶). Relationship ¶etween student performance on conceptual and computational pro¶lems of chemical equili¶rium. International Journal of Science Education 17: 343–355.Google Scholar
  29. Niaz, M. (1995c). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student a¶ility to solve chemistry pro¶lems: A Lakatosian interpretation. Science Education 79: 19–36.Google Scholar
  30. Niaz, M. (1995d). Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry pro¶lems: A dialectic-constructivist perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32: 959–970.Google Scholar
  31. Niaz, M. (1998). A Lakatosian conceptual change teaching strategy ¶ased on student a¶ility to ¶uild models with varying degrees of conceptual understanding of chemical equili¶rium. Science and Education 7: 107–127.Google Scholar
  32. Piaget, J. (1980). Adaptation and Intelligence, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  33. Piaget, J., and Garcia, R. (1989). Psychogenesis and the History of Science (Trans. H. Feider), Colum¶ia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., and Gerzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 66: 211–227.Google Scholar
  35. Quílez-Pardo, J., and Solaz-Portolés, J. J. (1995). Students' and teachers' misapplication of Le Chatelier's Principle: Implications for the teaching of chemical equili¶rium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32: 939–957.Google Scholar
  36. Rowell, J. A., and Dawson, C. J. (1985). Equili¶ration, conflict and instruction: A new class-oriented perspective. European Journal of Science Education 7: 331–344.Google Scholar
  37. Stewart, J., Finley, F. N., and Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Science content as important consideration in science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 19: 425–432.Google Scholar
  38. Strike, K. A., and Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In Duschl, R. A., and Hamilton, R. J. (Eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory in Practice, State University of New York Press, Al¶any, NY, pp. 147–176.Google Scholar
  39. Tsaparlis, G., Kousathana, M., and Niaz, M. (1998). Molecular equili¶rium pro¶lems: Manipulation of logical structure and of M-demand, and their effect on students' performance. Science Education 82: 437–454.Google Scholar
  40. Voska, K. W., and Heikkinen, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equili¶rium pro¶lems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 160–176.Google Scholar
  41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, Cam¶ridge, MA.Google Scholar
  42. Wheeler, A. E., and Kass, H. (1978). Student misconceptions in chemical equili¶rium. Science Education 62: 223–232.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mansoor Niaz
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemistry DepartmentUniversidad de OrienteCumaná, Estado SucreVenezuela

Personalised recommendations