Research in Science Education

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 71–96 | Cite as

Reexamining the Role of Cognitive Conflict in Science Concept Learning

  • Sukjin Kang
  • Lawrence C. Scharmann
  • Taehee Noh


In this study, we defined and quantified the degree of cognitive conflict induced by a discrepant event from a cognitive perspective. Based on the scheme developed, we investigated the relationship between cognitive conflict and conceptual change, and the influences of students' cognitive characteristics on conflict in learning the concept of density. Subjects were 171 seventh-grade girls from two city middle schools in Korea. Tests regarding logical thinking ability, field dependence/independence, and meaningful learning approach were administered. A preconception test and a test of responses to a discrepant event were also administered. Computer-assisted instruction was then provided to students as a conceptual change intervention. A conception test was administered as a posttest. In analysing students' responses to the discrepant event, seven types of responses were identified: Rejection, reinterpretation, exclusion, uncertainty, peripheral belief change, belief decrease, and belief change. These types were then ordered into four levels. The results indicated that there existed a significant correlation between cognitive conflict and conceptual change. t-test results revealed that there were statistically significant differences in the degree of cognitive conflict by the levels of students' logical thinking ability and field dependence/independence. Meaningful learning approach, however, was found to have no statistically significant effect on cognitive conflict. Educational implications are discussed.

cognitive conflict discrepant event science concept learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1988). Strategies for meta-learning in physics. Physics Education, 23(2), 97–104.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Children's reasoning and thinking. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (pp. 939–981). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Borges, A. T., & Gilbert, J. K. (1999). Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 95–117.Google Scholar
  5. Cantor, 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.Google Scholar
  6. Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students' understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 625–656.Google Scholar
  7. Cavallo, A. M. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1994). Relationships between students' meaningful learning orientation and their understanding of genetics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 393–418.Google Scholar
  8. Chambers, S. K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 107–123.Google Scholar
  9. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
  10. Chinn, C. A., & 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), 1–49.Google Scholar
  11. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, J. K. (1991). Educational implications of field dependence-independence. In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.), Field dependence-independence: Cognitive style across the life span (pp. 149–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Donn, S. (1989, March). Epistemological issues in science education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the "cognitive conflict" strategy for conceptual change – some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74(5), 555–569.Google Scholar
  15. Driver, R. (1994). Making a sense of secondary science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Duff, A. (1997). A note on the reliability and validity of a 30-item version of Entwistle & Tait's Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(4), 529–539.Google Scholar
  17. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. NewYork: Nichols Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  19. Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1994). The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh, Center for Research on Learning and Instruction.Google Scholar
  20. Frick, R. W. (1992). Interestingness. British Journal of Psychology, 83(1), 113–128.Google Scholar
  21. Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science and Education, 6(1), 15–28.Google Scholar
  22. Gordon, H. R. D. (1998, July). Identifying learning styles. Paper presented at the annual Summer Workshop for Beginning Vocational Education Teachers, Montgomery, West Virginia.Google Scholar
  23. Gorsky, P., & Finegold, M. (1994). The role of anomaly and of cognitive dissonance in restructuring students' concepts of force. Instructional Science, 22, 75–90.Google Scholar
  24. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 116–159.Google Scholar
  25. Hewson, M. G. (1986). The acquisition of scientific knowledge: Analysis and representation of student conceptions concerning density. Science Education, 70(2), 159–170.Google Scholar
  26. Hewson, M. G. (1988). The ecological context of knowledge: Implications for learning science in developing countries. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(4), 317–326.Google Scholar
  27. Hewson, M. G., & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students' prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731–743.Google Scholar
  28. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571.Google Scholar
  29. Kahle, J. B., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 542–558). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Klopfer, L. E., Champagne, A. B., & Chaiklin, S. D. (1992). The ubiquitous quantities: Explorations that inform the design of instruction on the physical properties of matter. Science Education, 76(6), 597–614.Google Scholar
  31. Lawson, A. E., & Thompson, L. D. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9), 733–746.Google Scholar
  32. Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills (Monograph of the NARST, No 1). Cincinnati, OH: National Association for Research on Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  33. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 357–380.Google Scholar
  34. Limón, M., & Carretero, M. (1997). Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural sciences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(2), 213–230.Google Scholar
  35. Linn, M. C. (1986). Science. In R. Dillon & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 155–204). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Linn, M. C., & Kyllonen, P. (1981). The field dependence-independence construct: Some, one or none. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 261–273.Google Scholar
  37. Mason, L. (2001). Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change. Learning and Instruction, 11(6), 453–483.Google Scholar
  38. Murray, F. B. (1983). Equilibration as cognitive conflict. Developmental Review, 3, 54–61.Google Scholar
  39. Noh, T., Kang, S., Kim, H., Chae, W., & Noh, S. (1997). Development and application of a conceptual change model for effective laboratory teaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 17, 179–189 (Korean).Google Scholar
  40. Osborne, R. J., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Publisher.Google Scholar
  41. 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. 3–13). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  42. 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(2), 167–199.Google Scholar
  43. 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(2), 211–227.Google Scholar
  44. Rieck, W. (1994). Density: A discovery approach. Science Activities, 31(2), 19–23.Google Scholar
  45. Roadrangka, V., Yeany, R. H., & Padilla, M. J. (1983, April). The construction and validation of Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  46. Roald, I., & Mikalsen, O. (2000). What are the Earth and the heavenly bodies like? A study of objectual conceptions among Norwegian deaf and hearing pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 337–355.Google Scholar
  47. Rowell, J. A., & Dawson, C. J. (1977). Teaching about floating and sinking: An attempt to link cognitive psychology with classroom practice. Science Education, 61(2), 245–253.Google Scholar
  48. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52.Google Scholar
  49. Scott, P. H., Asoko, H. M., & Driver, R. H. (1992). Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 310–329). Kiel, Germany: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften an der Universität Kiel.Google Scholar
  50. Shepardson, D. P., & Moje, E. B. (1999). The role of anomalous data in restructuring fourth graders' frameworks for understanding electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 77–94.Google Scholar
  51. Shepherd, D. L., & Renner, J. W. (1982). Student understandings and misunderstandings of states of matter and density changes. School Science and Mathematics, 82(8), 650–665.Google Scholar
  52. Smedslund, J. (1961). The acquisition of conservation of substance and weight in children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2, 156–160.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21(3), 177–237.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 221–283.Google Scholar
  55. Stavy, R., & Berkovitz, B. (1980). Cognitive conflict as a basis for teaching quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature. Science Education, 64, 679–692.Google Scholar
  56. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  57. Teixeira, F. M. (2000). What happens to the food we eat? Children's conceptions of the structure and function of the digestive system. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 507–520.Google Scholar
  58. Tirosh, D., Stavy, R., & Cohen, S. (1998). Cognitive conflict and intuitive rules. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1257–1269.Google Scholar
  59. Tsai, C.-C. (2000). Enhancing science instruction: The use of 'conflict maps.' International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 285–302.Google Scholar
  60. Tytler, R. (2000). A comparison of year 1 and year 6 students' conceptions of evaporation and condensation: Dimensions of conceptual progression. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 447–467.Google Scholar
  61. Vandenplas-Holper, C. (1996). Intraindividual and interindividual cognitive conflict, related variables and relations with cognitive development. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 55(2/3), 161–175.Google Scholar
  62. Voska, K. W., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(1), 160–176.Google Scholar
  63. 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). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  64. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cos, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Reviews of Educational Research, 47, 1–64.Google Scholar
  65. Yarlas, A. S., & Gelman, R. (1998, April). Learning as a predictor of situational interest. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  66. Zimmerman, B. J. (1977). Modeling. In H. Hom & P. Robinson (Eds.), Psychological processes in early education (pp. 37–70). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  67. Zimmerman, B. J., & Blom, D. E. (1983). Toward an empirical test of the role of cognitive conflict in learning. Developmental Review, 3, 18–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sukjin Kang
    • 1
  • Lawrence C. Scharmann
    • 2
  • Taehee Noh
    • 3
  1. 1.Jeonju National University of EducationKorea
  2. 2.Kansas State UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Seoul National UniversityKorea

Personalised recommendations