The goals of science education vary depending on which perspective one takes. TSS (Ch2) discusses three main perspectives on science and as I was reading each I would categorize myself within each one. At the end, I’m not sure which perspective I really follow, but it is clear that each has their own agenda as well as contribution to the field of science. One common goal is to incite and encourage conceptual change throughout development. Conceptual change seems easy enough to operationalize on the surface, but when thinking about the types of conceptual change, various perspectives/theoretical frameworks, mechanisms of conceptual change, etc. it is clear that this construct is quite complex. One quote that I really resonated with was from TSS (Ch4), misconceptions are “necessary conceptual steppingstones on a path toward more accurate knowledge” (p. 98). When I first heard the word misconception, I originally thought it was something to avoid completely. However, it is apparent to me now that misconceptions are just a normal step in the process of conceptual change.
Posner (1982) explains assimilation (using existing concepts to deal with new phenomena) and accommodation (replaces or reorganizes central concepts because individual’s previous concepts were inadequate). One question that I have surrounds one of the main conditions of accommodation: dissatisfaction with existing conceptions. TSS (Ch4) discusses metacognitive guided learning as a mechanism for conceptual change, which involves fostering conceptual change by detecting and monitoring incongruities in one’s own existing conceptual change. The question is how do individuals, particularly children, become aware of this dissatisfaction? When do they start questioning their own theories and mental models? Is this process even conscious?
I chose the Tyson et al. (1996) article to read because it appeared on the surface to go over more cognitive developmental theories of conceptual change and it discussed issues that need to be addressed by researchers working within a conceptual change framework. Tyson noted the revisions made to Posner’s (1982) initial framework, which answered another one of my questions. What is the role of motivation and self-efficacy in learning, particularly conceptual change? Posner’s new framework included this issue and proposed a wider range of factors that need to be considered. One of the issues that Tyson discusses is the status of students’ conceptions, which speaks to the issue I brought up above regarding stability of current conceptions. For example, consider the question of “do I see more of myself in a mirror if I back-up?” My initial answer is yes (and has been for years); however, the true answer is no. I still do not understand or truly “see” this phenomenon. Thus, is my status weak and unstable? If someone were to present convincing evidence that you do see more of yourself, would I believe that more? Tyson’s multidimensional interpretive framework seems to be a good way to analyze conceptual change because it takes perspectives based on epistemology, ontology, and social/affective.
Hi Cori,
It is interesting how the meanings of word change depending on in which domain they are used. “Misconception” in the conceptual change literature does not appear to be a negative, rather it is the result of meaning making without the benefit of knowing, using and being able to interpret scientific explanations and reasoning. “Argument” is science education is not (or should not be) an unpleasant situation but a mode of discourse used to comprehend connections “between ideas and the evidence (TSS, 2007: 33). “Theory” in science is a concept supported by strong evidence whereas in everyday use “theory” is more speculative. In the classroom, how much confusion is caused by defining these words on a vocabulary test in language arts and then hearing and using them in science class?
On the mirror phenomenon, to me, it is a difficult one to fully embrace. I know the physics of it and don’t have an issue with that but I agree with you that it just seems that answer should be “yes” even though “yes” is totally wrong. Even after conducting the experiment dozens of times and getting the same result (i.e., no I don’t see more of myself if I backup) I still don’t completely let go of my initial, naïve (pre-physics) idea that I should be able to see more of myself. Silly isn’t is? Is this an example of a replaced conception not becoming a forgotten conception that may be reinstated at some point in time? (Duit & Treagust, 2003). Or is it a replaced conception that is not forgotten and even though logically one know s it is wrong, wouldn’t it be cool if it were right? Is this a form of egocentrism (TSS, 2007: 104) Should a replaced-but-not-forgotten conception that does not seem to interfere with learning and understanding science be ignored, discounted, embraced, or just acknowledged as existing?
I also wonder how much learning is prompted by motivation and self-efficacy. On a gut level, brought about from dealing with students of all ages in informal settings, self-efficacy seems to be is a huge factor in learning and coming to understand and accept new concepts (or not) in hands-on, participatory learning environments. Because participation in informal learning activities is generally not compulsory, is it possible that those with low levels of self-efficacy but choose to engage in an educational activity are quite mindful of their level but are open to raising it ?
Cori,
I am glad that you included the misconception quote from Taking Science to School (2007) because it also stuck out to me. Although the research project that I am working on has shown me that misconceptions can be “steppingstones” that lead to a more scientific level of understanding, I still find myself thinking of misconceptions as ideas that are incorrect and need to be changed. I think that many teachers tend to focus on the negative aspects of misconceptions rather than the positive aspects. Because of this, teachers often think that misconceptions need to be replaced; however Posner et al. (1982) suggest that misconceptions can be built upon, modified, or changed.
I think that the questions that you raised from Taking Science to School (2007) were very interesting. In the research project that I am working on, I have seen students become dissatisfied with their mental models. For example, a student once stated that the Earth’s gravity cuts-off at the atmosphere, but that the Moon orbits the Earth because of Earth’s gravitational pull. Once the student stated both of these ideas, she realized that they were conflicting and acknowledged that she did not know how it worked. Although I do not know when this particular reasoning skill develops, I think it would be possible for young students to become dissatisfied with their mental models if provided with appropriate evidence. For example, many young students believe that plants need soil to grow, but they become dissatisfied with this mental model when they observe plants growing in a plastic bag with only a damp paper towel.
I have never heard of the “mirror phenomenon” before. Was this something that was discussed in the Tyson et al. (1996) article? Although I am not entirely sure that I understand the phenomenon, but it sounds as if you see the same amount of yourself because when you are closer you see a more “molecular” view, but when you are further you see a more “holistic” view. However, I am not sure if I completely understand how this applies to conceptual change.
KeriAnn