TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE: TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES

Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah

Abstract


At the beginning of the 1980’s, one of the most striking explanation of conceptual change was made by Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog (1982) with a Conceptual Change Theory based on a Scientific Revolution Theory of Kuhn (1970). In Conceptual Change Theory, learning was explained with the Piaget (1970)’s concepts such as assimilation and accommodation. Especially at the beginning of 1990, the Conceptual Change Theory was called as a cold conceptual change, for solely taking the cognitive factors of individuals, and for not taking the affective factors like motivation into consideration (Pintrich, Max & Boyle, 1993). In their studies Tyson, Venville, Harrison & Treagust (1997) (1997) and Alsop & Watts suggested a multidimensional structure of conceptual change including affective characteristics. Dole & Sinatra (1998) have emphasized information processing in conceptual change and have also described the impact of motivation on conceptual change in their Cognitive Reconstruction of Knowledge Model. The Authors explain how the affective and cognitive characteristics interact each other, and they come up with the warming trend in the conceptual change. Gregoire (2003) has emphasized the automatical evaluation of message and emotions such as fear and anxiety. In order to show how these constructs effect conceptual change, the author has proposed Cognitive Affective Model of Conceptual Change called Hot Conceptual Change. According to the Zhou (2010), although hot factors, such as motivation, are added up to the conceptual change models cumulatively in time, they have little evidence at the point of science teaching. Author proposed a model called “Argumentation Approach in Teaching Science” in order to raise temperature in science teaching by using argumentation approach. In this study, we tried to raise temperature more than Zhou (2010) did and started hot trend in science teaching. In this paper, conceptual change literature has been summarized and our teaching model based on a hot conceptual change and supported by motivational and metacognitive strategies has been introduced. Furthermore, application of our hot model to the Photoelectric Effect Teaching was presented.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


conceptual change; hot conceptual change; teaching for hot conceptual change; photoelectric effect

Full Text:

PDF Academia.edu E R I C

References


Alsop, S. & Watts, D. M. (1997). Sources from a Somerset Village: A model for informal learning about radiation and radioactivity. Science Education, 81, 633-650.

Beeth, M. E. (1998). Facilitating conceptual change learning: The need for the teachers to support metacognition. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 49-61.

Brown, D. E. & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions by analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237-261.

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Effecting changes in cognitive structures among physics students in cognitive structure and conceptual change. West L. and Pines A. (Eds.). Academic Press.

Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1–40.

Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J. D., & Deleeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.

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, 623–654.

Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.

Clement, J., Brown, D., & Zeitsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554-565.

Cosgrove, M. & Osborne, R. (1985). Lesson frameworks for changing children's ideas. In Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (eds.) Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Auckland: Heinemann.

Dole, J. A. & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualising change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.

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.

Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students, Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.

Duit, R. & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual Change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671–688.

Dykstra, D.I., Boyle, C.F., & Monarch, I.A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76, 615–652.

Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In: Sorrentino, R.M., and Higgins, E. T. (eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior (pp. 204–243), New York: Guilford Press.

Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and the development of metacognition. In F.E. Weinert ve R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associate Publishers.

Gilbert, J.K., Watts, D.M. & Osborne, R.J. (1982). Students’ concepts of ideas in mechanics, Physics Education, 17, 62-66.

Gorsky, P. & Feingold, M. (1994). The role of anomaly and of cognitive dissonance in restructuring students’ concepts of force. Instructional Science, 22, 75–90.

Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal process during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 117–155.

Güngör, A. A. (2010). Teaching practices enhancing students’ affective characteristics related to physics. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Hadjiachilleos, S., Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2013). The impact of cognitive and affective aspects of cognitive conflict on learners’ conceptual change about floating and sinking, Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(2), 133-152.

Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education, 15(2), 92-97.

Hennessey, M. G. (1993). Students’ ideas about their conceptualization: Their elicitation through instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

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

Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M. G. (1992). The status of students' conceptions. R. Duit, F. Goldberg and H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies, Kiel, 59-73.

Hewson, P. W. & Thorley, R. N. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541–553.

Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M. A. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1-13.

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, 731–743.

Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3 (4), 383-396.

Kang, S., Scharmann, L.C. & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34, 71 – 96.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kural, M. (2015). Teaching for hot conceptual change: An example of grade 11 modern physics, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.

Lee, O. & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 585–610.

Lee, G. & Byun, T. (2012). An explanation for the difficulty of leading conceptual change using a counterintuitive demonstration: The relationship between cognitive conflict and responses. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 943-965.

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.

Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119-137.

Lombardi, D. & Sinatra, G. M. (2012). College students’ perceptions about the plausibility of human-induced climate change. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 201-217.

Mason, L. (2000). Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle school students’ theory change about two controversial topics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 329–346.

Niedderer, H. (1987). A teaching strategy based on students' alternative frameworks-theoretical conceptions and examples. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Seminar: Vol. 2. Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics (pp. 360-367). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Nussbaum, J. & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183-200.

Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853–1881.

Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic.

Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.

Pines, A. & West, L. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research within sources of knowledge framework. Science Education, 70(5), 583-604.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459-470.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-235.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.

Pintrich, P. R. & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7). Grenwich CT: JAI Press.

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), 167-200.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of a conceptual change, Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.

Rowell, J. A. & Dawson, C. J. (1985). Equilibration, conflict and instruction: A new class-oriented perspective. European Journal of Science Education, 4(4), 331-344.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.

Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychological Review, 7, 351-371.

Scott, P. H., Asoko, H. M., & Driver, R. (1992). Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In R. Duit, Goldberg, F. and Niedderer, H. (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 310-329). Kiel: IPN.

She, H. C. (2002). Concepts of a higher hierarchical level require more dual situated learning events for conceptual change: A study of air pressure and buoyancy. International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 981-996.

She, H. C. (2003). DSLM instructional approach to conceptual change involving thermal expansion. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21, 43–54.

She, H. C. (2004). Fostering radical conceptual change through dual-situated learning model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 142–164.

Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The warming trend in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 107–115.

Sinatra, G. M. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stavy, R. & Berkovitz, B. (1980). Cognitive conflict as a basis for teaching quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature. Science Education, 64, 679–692.

Strike, K. & Posner, G. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change, In R. A. Duschl and R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 147–176), New York: State University of New York Press.

Tao, P. K. & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882.

Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Treagust, D. F. & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 297-328.

Tsai, C.-C. (2001). Collaboratively developing instructional activities of conceptual change through the internet: Science teachers’ perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 619–622.

Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C. & Shieh, S. H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation toward science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639–654.

Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. L., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81, 387–404.

Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding in science: Student conceptions research, and changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48, 14-21.

Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual changes. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.

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: Elsevier Science.

Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1987) Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57, 51–67.

Vosniadou, S. & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1213-1230.

Wentzel K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relationship of social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1–24.

Yıldız, E. (2008). The effects of metacognition during the instruction based on conceptual change used with 5E model: An application regarding the force and motion subject in the 7th grade. PhD Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.

Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptual change in science: A process of argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 101-110.

Zohar, A. & Kravetsky, S. A. (2005). Exploring the effects of cognitive conflict and direct teaching for students of different academic levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 829-855.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.301

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.


This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).