To “know, use, and interpret scientific knowledge of the natural world” (National Research Council, 2007: Strand 1) sounds easy enough—but of course it is not. This weeks’ readings provide ample evidence of the difficulties encountered when trying to move students beyond their naïve conceptions (or misconceptions?) of science and how science works toward more sophisticated and mature understandings and uses of scientific concepts. The key to really learning science is to learn science with understanding. The difficulty for students, it seems to me, is to reach the point where their understanding becomes profound enough that conceptual change is required to move beyond their naive conceptions and allow for acceptance of valid conceptions plus the rejection of the naïve ones. Conceptual change as accommodation (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982) where inadequate existing concepts are replaced or reorganized to deal with new phenomena is necessary as more information is taken in by the learner; however, there are never any assurances that new ideas and concepts will be accepted and internalized or old ones will be rejected and discarded. People of all ages ultimately learn and retain what they want to or what they deem relevant to their lives. How they learn, what they learn, and when they learn depends on many internal factors (e.g., age, maturity, culture) over which teacher’s have little or no control.
So, is it realistic to expect science instruction to produce accommodation in students, rather than merely to help students make sense of new concepts and theories? (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982: 225). Does science instruction in school today have the, what I would call luxury of time to produce accommodation in students, to let them fumble about, make false starts, and frequent reversals in direction? Or are we stuck in a system that pushes teachers to teach for recall and assimilation? Can teachers expect to be allowed the time or given the chance to gain expertise in employing evaluation techniques that track the process of conceptual change in students, e.g., the Piagetian clinical interview (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982: 226). It has been more than thirty years since Posner and his coauthors suggested teaching strategies that, they felt, promoted conceptual change in students thinking. Have those strategies become the norm? Probably not, but that the concept has been taken seriously enough to warrant becoming “one of the most important domains of science education research during the past three decades” (Duit & Treagust, 2003: 671) is, to me, heartening.
I found it quite fascinating to read about the many definitions and descriptions of conceptual change that have been developed over the last three decades. Tyson’s chart (Tyson, Venville, Harrison, & Treagust, 1997: 390, figure 2) of the researchers and their varying terminology and connotations should be expanded to chronicle more recent developments of interpretation and understanding of conceptual change. That learning is a multidimensional, multifaceted series of mental exercises which may lead to conceptual change seems to be a well established concept in science education research and one that is similar to the basis of how science works. For example, the TSS characterization of a metaconceptual framework mode (NRC, 2007: 112) in the spectrum of conceptual change learning describes the very essence of how science works—a question is developed which generates alternatives (questions/answers/concepts), the alternatives are examined and evaluated which leads to the development of new questions that generate alternatives that must be examined and evaluated and leading to more questions, and so forth and so on. That conceptual change can take a variety of forms that can vary in degree and difficulty (National Research Council, 2007: 107) is probably an understatement.
Julianne,
I like how you explained conceptual change: “acceptance of valid conceptions plus the rejection of the naive ones.” I think rejection of the naive conceptions is an important part. I also appreciate how you stated that learning depends on many internal factors: age, maturity, culture, etc. I think socialization practices have much to do with education and what an individual learns from his/her environment. I also think a critical point you bring up regards a weakness in today’s education system of having time (or lack-there-of) to allow and encourage students to think critically and give them opportunities to revisit certain topics that cause instability.
Cori
Hi Keri Ann,
I found your comments on a hierarchy of accommodation and assimilation interesting. I hadn’t thought of those in that term but after your comment I looked back at Posner et al and gave it some thought. I think we all approach and try to make sense of new phenomena armed with our existing concepts, i.e., assimilation. Posner et al say this is the first phase of conceptual change. If the existing concepts don’t work, then they either get reorganized or replaced, what Posner et al claim is a “more radical form” of conceptual change. But what if your existing concepts about domain of science are fairly advanced and sophisticated and you encounter a phenomenon in another domain of science unfamiliar to you. Your existing concepts may be very useful in organizing your investigation of that phenomenon. That seems like assimilation again. As you delve deeper into the investigations some of your concepts might change as you gain more insight and knowledge about the new phenomenon. Now you’re back to accommodation. So, maybe the relationship between assimilation and accommodation is not a hierarchical one but more is more like a teeter-totter?
Julianne,
Based on your response, it seems as if you have placed a hierarchical order on assimilation and accomodation, with accomodation being more important than assimilation. I find this to be very interesting, because I never thought of it in this way. I always thought that students would either accomodate or assimilate based on the status of their current idea; a student’s idea may not always need to be replaced. However, I can understand why teachers may prefer students to accomodate their ideas.
I think that you raised a good point that there are never any “assurances that new ideas and concepts will be accepted and internalized or old ones will be rejected and discarded.” However, I think that the NGSS tried to help with this by including the scientific practices with the content. I think that many of these practices, such as using evidence and engaging in argumentation, may help students to be willing to “move beyond their naive conceptions and allow for acceptance of valid conceptions plus the rejection of the naïve ones.”
The question that you asked about the amount of time that it takes for students to undergo conceptual change is important. I believe that students will vary in the amount of time that it will take for this process to occur, and that the time may also vary on the particular concept being studied. However, I think that the big ideas of the NGSS may help teachers devote more time to particular concepts and process, which may allow for enough time for conceptual change to occur in students. I think the problem before was that there was too much content covered in too little depth in many science classrooms. Hopefully, this will not continue to be a problem.
KeriAnn