The two articles and book chapter we read for class each discussed conceptual change in learning scientific concepts across education from a constructivist viewpoint. Each article and chapter focused on different strategies of learning science by students, while two discussed teacher intervention in classroom application and curriculum development. Many of the theories and practices from chapter four of the book, A Framework for the K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012) and Duit & Treagust (2003) were built from the Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) article.
The Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) article was one of the first significant contributions to conceptual change theory in science education. The research introduces the idea that learning is the result of what the student is taught and her/his current ideas and concepts. The article also discusses how learning comprehends and accepts ideas because they are now seen as intelligible and rational, which is a process of conceptual change. Two phases of conceptual change in science were discussed, which are central commitments (assimilation) and modification (accommodation). There was also a ‘bonus feature’ that included how inquiry and learning can occur against the background of the learner’s current topic. This was also discussed in chapter four from the Framework book. There were four conditions for a modification (accommodation) to occur: dissatisfaction with the existing conceptions, the new conception must be intelligible, the conception must appear plausible, and the new conception suggests possibility of a fruitful research program.
Although this article was the most difficult of the three for me to read and understand, I found it to be most valuable after I had read the other two readings. One idea that was cited in the Druit & Treagust (2003) article was the notion of conceptual ecology, which is how current ideas, thoughts, and theories influence new information. I found this concept to be most interesting and one I would like to further research. I believe that students (regardless of the subject being taught) bring many aspects to the classroom even before the teacher begins her/his lesson, such as culture, prior knowledge, and past experiences.
The Druit & Treagust (2003) reading builds upon the Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) article by discussing the limitations of ‘Classical’ conceptual change, such as how the understanding of science includes knowledge of science concepts and principles and about science content knowledge. The article also discusses alternate approaches to analyze conceptual change, such as group learning and student modelling. All three articles discussed how students come into the science classroom with pre-instructional knowledge and concepts and how teachers should be aware of this while thinking about conceptual change in their pedagogical practice.
Chapter four of the book, A Framework for the K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012) also discussed how knowledge changes and is built upon by knowledge prior to school. The chapter identifies three areas: improvement in children’s understanding, changes do not always bring students closer to ideal scientific view (ex. naivety – and the one I found most interesting), and variability in changes that occur. The examples used in both chapter four and Druit & Treagust (2003) were very helpful in visualizing how conceptual change occurs and areas of science students struggle to learn.
As I read each of these articles, I placed myself (as a student and teacher) inside the framework of conceptual change from a constructivist viewpoint. I began reflecting on my own high school science education and my own learning of new information. I can remember teachers who definitely saw (and taught) the value in group learning and modelling to help student’s bridge the gap between theory and practice resulting in conceptual change. However, I also remember teachers who used the traditional, transmissive approach. My own learning style where conceptual change most often occurs is during kinesthetic and visual experiences (regardless of subject). It is very interesting to begin to study and think about how and why we learn.
I think that conceptual change is much more than just the acquisition of knowledge. Reading a textbook before or after class falls into the latter category most of the time. Conceptual change happens when your beliefs are challenged due to this acquision: that fire is a process and not a material. I think the idea behind reading the textbook before class is for students to come with questions – to ask about any conceptual challenges that occured. If the lecture is just reiteration of the book (as happened in many of my science classes as well), then there is more than just a lack of conceptual change happening. This kind of learning environment does little to deepen students’ understandings: “…being exposed to new information is not the same as remembering or understanding it” (TSS, p.111).
Have you heard about Penn State’s engineering classes doing flipped classrooms? Students watch professor lectures at home and then use class time to solve problems or have group discussions. I’m not sure how effective this will be, but it is an interesting solution.
I found it interesting that you referred to assimilation and accommodation as “phases” of conceptual change. To me that implies a progression from one to the other, where I had thought of it as one or the other occurring depending on how different the new concept is from the old one: assimilation if just a few tweaks need to be made and accommodation in the case of a complete overhaul.
I agree that teachers should be aware of students’ pre-instructional knowledge, but this seems easier said than done. It is one thing to just acknowledge that students come into a classroom with a wide variety of backgrounds, but it is very difficult to know just what they are. Even if the teacher administers some kind of questionnaire, it still wouldn’t produce an exhaustive list. And even if the teacher somehow had this information, it would still be quite a challenge to figure out exactly how to lead all of those backgrounds to conceptual change.
I liked that you mentioned your personal learning experience. I’m also a visual learner, or at least I remember things best that are presented visually. I’m not sure what style causes conceptual change the most for me though, since I only learned about conceptual change this week.