Abstract
Although various reasons have been proposed to explain the potential effectiveness of science stories to promote learning, no explicit relationship of stories to learning theory in science has been propounded. In this paper, two structurally analogous models are developed and compared: a structural model of stories and a temporal conceptual change model of learning. On the basis of the similarity of the models, as elaborated, it is proposed that the structure of science stories may promote a re-enactment of the learning process, and, thereby, such stories serve to encourage active learning through the generation of hypotheses and explanations. The practical implications of this theoretical analogy can be applied to the classroom in that the utilization of stories provides the opportunity for a type of re-enactment of the learning process that may encourage both engagement with the material and the development of long-term memory structures.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arntzenius, F. (1995). A heuristic for conceptual change. Philosophy of Science, 62, 357–369.
Bremond, C. (1980). The logic of narrative possibilities. New Literary History, 11, 387–411.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carey, S. (1996). Science education as conceptual change. Paper presented for the Committee on developments in the science of learning for the sciences of science learning: An interdisciplinary discussion, New York University, Department of Psychology.
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Ungar, C. (1990). An experiment is when you try and see if it works. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science—from behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Egan, K. (1978). What is a plot? New Literary History, 9, 455–473.
Egan, K. (1986). Teaching as story telling. London, Ontario: Althouse Press.
Egan, K. (1989a). The shape of the science text: A function of stories. In S. de Castell, A. Luke, & C. Luke (Eds.), Language, authority and criticism: Readings on the school textbook (pp. 96–108). New York: The Falmer Press.
Egan, K. (1989b). Memory, imagination, and learning: Connected by the story. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(6), 455–459.
Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schultz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Hanks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111(1), 3–32.
Graesser, A., & Weimer-Hastings, K. (1999). Situation models and concepts in story comprehension. In S. Goldman, A. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality and coherence (pp. 77–92). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, 74, 421–430.
Harnad, S. (1982). Neoconstructivism: A unifying constraint for the cognitive sciences. In T. Simon & R. Scholes (Eds.), Language, mind and brain (pp. 1–11). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Helstrand, A., & Ott, A. (1995). The utilization of fiction when teaching the theory of relativity. Physics Education, 30(5), 284–286.
Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383–396.
Howard, P. J. (2000). The owner’s manual for the brain: Everyday applications from mind-brain research (2nd ed.). Austin: Bard Press.
Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (1994). Abductive inference, computation philosophy, technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kenealy, P. (1989). Telling a coherent “Story”: A role for the history and philosophy of science in a physical science course. In D. E. Herget (Ed.), HPSST, Proceedings of the First International Conference, pp 209–220.
Klassen, S. (2009). The construction and analysis of a science story: A proposed methodology. Science & Education, 18, 401–423.
Kruckeberg, R. (2006). A Deweyan perspective on science education: Constructivism, experience, and why we learn science. Science & Education, 15, 1–30.
Kubli, F. (1999). Historical aspects in physics teaching: Using Galileo’s work in a New Swiss project. Science & Education, 8, 137–150.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lin, H. (1998). The effectiveness of teaching chemistry through the history of science. J Chemical Education, 75(10), 1326–1330.
Locke, D. (1992). Science as writing. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Macbeth, D. (2000). On an actual apparatus for conceptual change. Science Education, 84, 228–264.
Magie, W. F. (1965). A source book in physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151.
Martin, W. (1986). Recent theories of narrative. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Martin, B. E., & Brouwer, W. (1991). The sharing of personal science and the narrative element in science education. Science Education, 75(6), 707–722.
McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1984). What makes a good story? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(6), 457–480.
Metz, D., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., Clough, M., & Olson, J. (2007). Building a foundation for historical narratives. Science & Education, 16, 313–334.
Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect response to literary stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407.
Noddings, N., & Witherell, C. (1991). Epilogue: Themes remembered and foreseen. In C. Witherell & N. Noddings (Eds.), Stories lives tell (pp. 279–280). New York: Teachers College Press.
Norris, S., Guilbert, M., Smith, M., Shahram, H., & Phillips, L. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535–554.
Ohlsson, S. (1992). The cognitive skill of theory articulation: A neglected aspect of science education? Science & Education, 1, 181–192.
Ohlsson, S. (1999). Theoretical commitment and implicit knowledge: Why anomalies do not trigger learning. Science & Education, 8, 559–574.
Ohlsson, S. (2002). Generating and understanding qualitative explanations. In A. Graesser, J. Leon, & J. Otero (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 91–128). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
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.
Prince, G. (1973). A grammar of stories: An introduction. The Hague: Mouton.
Reid, I. (1977). The short story. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.
Romero, F., Paris, S. G., & Brem, S. (2005). Children’s comprehension and local-to-global recall of narrative and expository texts. Current Issues in Education 8(25): Available via http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume8/number25/. Accessed 1 July 2009.
Schwitzgebel, E. (1999). Children’s theories and the drive to explain. Science & Education, 8, 457–488.
Solomon, J. (2002). Science stories and science texts: What can they do for our students? Studies in Science Education, 37, 85–106.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409–421.
Stinner, A. (1990). Philosophy, thought experiments and large context problems in the secondary school physics course. International Journal of Science Education, 12(3), 244–257.
Stinner, A. (1992). Contextual teaching in physics: From science stories to large—context problems. Alberta Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 20–29.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1982). Conceptual change and science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 231–240.
Sutton, R. S. (1997). On the significance of Markov decision processes. In W. Gerstner, A. Germond, M. Hasler, & J. D. Nicoud (Eds.), Artificial neural networks—ICANN’97 (pp. 273–282). London: Springer.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77–110.
Wandersee, J. H. (1990). On the value and use of the history of science in teaching today’s science: Constructing historical vignettes. In D. E. Herget (Ed.), More history and philosophy of science in science teaching (pp. 278–283). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
Wandersee, J. H. (1992). The historicality of cognition: Implications for science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 423–434.
Wandersee, J. H., & Roach, L. M. (1998). Interactive historical vignettes. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding (pp. 281–306). California: Academic Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York: McMillan.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Arthur Stinner for insightful discussions that contributed to the writing of this paper. Funding provided by the University of Winnipeg and Canada’s NSERC CRYSTAL centre at the University of Manitoba has supported the researching and writing of this paper. Appreciation is also due to Carly Scramstad for her invaluable assistance with the final revision of the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klassen, S. The Relation of Story Structure to a Model of Conceptual Change in Science Learning. Sci & Educ 19, 305–317 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9212-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9212-8