Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student restraints to reform: Conceptual change issues in enhancing students' learning processes

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Considerable research has been published on students' alternative conceptions of science concepts and the means of addressing those alternative conceptions. However, few studies have been reported on students' conceptions of learning and consequent learning processes and attempts to change such conceptions and processes. Recent research has shown that students' beliefs can act as barriers to the implementation of educational reforms that aim to alter students' learning processes. In this study an interpretive methodology was employed by a teacher participant-observer to investigate barriers to students' adoption of an alternative referent for learning and its consequent learning strategies in a Grade 11 chemistry class. Student narratives suggest that both “cold” and “hot” contextual factors influenced students' willingness to adopt an alternative referent. The consideration of “hot” factors, including students' beliefs, trust of the teacher, and ownership of the change process, is necessary if such change is to be understood more fully. The value and difficulties of a teacher adopting this researcher's perspective are also explored.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altrichter, H. (1993).The concept of quality in action research: Giving practitioners a voice in educational research. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, S. (1994). Rethinking the principles and practice of action research: The tensions for the researcher-teacher.Contemporary Action Research, 2(3), 383–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. R. (1992). The individual student. In J. R. Baird, & J. R. Northfield (Eds.),Learning from the PEEL experience (pp. 37–60). Melbourne: Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. R., Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1991). The importance of reflection in improving science teaching and learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(2), 163–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (Eds.). (1987). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study—The PEEL project. Melbourne: Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (Eds.). (1992).Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne: Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1987).Learning Processes Questionnaire. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students.Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979).The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning.Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 413–427). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, M. F., & Clandinin, D. J. (1986). On narrative method, personal philosophy, and narratives unities in the story of teaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(4), 293–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students: A plea to researchers and reformers.Educational Researcher, 24(5), 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bono, E. (1981).CoRT Thinking. Sydney: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Crandell, R. (1978).Ethics in social and behavioural research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Down, B. F. R. (1990). Education reform in context.Unicorn, 16(1), 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. (1987). Teaching thinking: A focus for science teaching.Research in Science Education, 17, 38–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. (1991). Researching the direct teaching of thinking skills. In P. Davies (Ed.),The curriculum redefined. Learning to think—thinking to learn (pp. 19–30). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J., & Baldauf, R. B. (Jr.). (1987). The effects of the CoRT 1 thinking skills programme on students. In D. N. Perkins, J. Lochhead, & J. Bishop (Eds.),Thinking: The second international conference (pp. 453–473). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995).Writing ethnographic field notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.),International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.),Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1990).Individualised classroom environment questionnaire. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989).Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunstone, R. F. (1988). Learners in science education. In P. Fensham (Ed.),Developments and dilemmas in science education (pp. 73–95). Barcombe, Sussex: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Constructivism and metacognition: Theoretical issues and classroom studies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.),Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 129–140). Kiel, Germany: Institute IPN, University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.),The content of science: A constructivist approach to its learning and teaching (pp. 131–146). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change.Educational Researcher, 29(5), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Treagust, D. F., & Vance, K. (1997). Student perceptions of the social constructivist classroom.Science Education, 81(5), 561–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewson, P. W. (1996). Teaching for conceptual change. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.),Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 131–140). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser, & K. Tobin (Eds.),International handbook of science education (pp. 199–218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, D. L. (1989).Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (1997). Editors' introduction. In D. Kirshner, & J. Whitson (Eds.),Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 1–16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lensmire, T. J. (1998). Rewriting student voice.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(3), 261–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrindle, A. R., & Christensen, C. A. (1995). The impact of learning journals on metacognitive processes and cognitive processes and learning performances.Learning and Instruction, 5, 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRobbie, C. J., & Tobin, K. (1997). A social constructivist perspective on learning environments.International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • McRobbie, C. J., Roth, W-M., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). Multiple learning environments in the physics classroom.International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 333–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, J. (1993). Action research through stimulated recall.Research in Science Education, 23, 214–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1985). General cognitive skills—Why not? In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 2, pp. 339–364). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. (1992).Smart schools. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). New conceptions of thinking: From ontology to education.Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). What is (Should Be) the researcher's role in terms of agency?: A question for the 21st century.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 963–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). >unDELETE science education:/lives/work/voices.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 399–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983).The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikes, P. J. (1992). Imposed change and the experienced teacher. In M. Fullan, & A. Hargreaves (Eds.),Teacher development and educational change (pp. 36–55). London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, S. M. (1988).Helping children to reflect on their learning: An investigation of a teaching strategy designed to encourage young children to reflect on their learning. Unpublished MEdSt project, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. P. (1991, November).A thinking course in science. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Science Teachers' Association of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.

  • Thomas, G. P. (1992).An investigation into the transfer of cognitive strategies. Unpublished MEdSt thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. P. (1993, July).Barriers to the teaching and transfer of cognitive strategies in the science classroom. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Lismore, NSW.

  • Thomas, G. P. (1994). Breaking down the barriers to the teaching of thinking strategies.Independence, 20(2), 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tishman, S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). The language of thinking.Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 368–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K. (1990). Changing metaphors and beliefs: A master switch for teaching.Theory into Practice, 29(2), 122–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K. (Ed.). (1993a).The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington DC: AAAS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K. (1993b). Referents for making sense of science teaching.International Journal of Science Education, 15(3), 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler, A. W. (1970).Future shock. London: Pan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.),The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 21–93). Washington, DC: AAAS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. T. (1988a).Learning science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. T. (1988b). Questionable assumptions underlying secondary school classrooms.Australian Journal of Education, 32(3), 311–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. T. (1993, April).Insights on conceptual change derived from extensive attempts to promote metacognition. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

  • White, R. T., & Mitchell, I. J. (1994). Metacognition and the quality of learning.Studies in Science Education, 23, 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Mathematics and Science Education, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, 4059, Brisbane, Australia

    Gregory P. Thomas

Authors
  1. Gregory P. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory P. Thomas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thomas, G.P. Student restraints to reform: Conceptual change issues in enhancing students' learning processes. Research in Science Education 29, 89–109 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461182

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461182

Keywords

Search

Navigation