To be honest, as much as I enjoyed learning about both Kuhn’s and Lakatos’ ideologies of conceptual change, I feel as though I favor the way Lakatos discusses the framework as well as his terminology. Deeming a students’ central commitments as “theoretical hardcore” (Posner, Pg.212) that leads to specified “research programs” helps me visualize the process that students undergo when traversing a conceptual change. His claim that these research programs are neither confirmed nor refuted also allows me to buy into his version, being that we are told from a very early point as science educators that technically no science can be completely proven. It’s this statement’s fluidity that helps me buy into the conceptual change framework. Rather than Khun’s view that “normal science” is punctuated by short revolutions (Disessa Handbook, pg.268), I feel as if students’ prior knowledge is always ebbing and flowing with the information that they are subjected to. Stating that normal science is punctuated with rapid periods of growth makes me feel as if there are only very specific moments in which students will question whether they should progress through conceptual change. I hold the belief that when students are presented with any new knowledge (scholastic or otherwise), there are always small reorganizations occurring within their conceptual ecology.
I feel as if this constant idea of reorganization can be supported by Piaget’s view of equilibration. As an influx of new ideas is accepted, the scale is tipped to no longer favor students’ prior knowledge (Disessa Handbook, pg.267). In my eyes, Piaget’s process is never going to lead to a perfectly balanced seesaw. Students are always going to be adding or removing weights that fuel the imbalance. If this is the case, then it seems safe to say that students need to be supported in their balancing act, as suggested in both papers. Being that it is ultimately the students who must buy into a conceptual change, it then falls onto me (the teacher) to help students discover which information warrants a conceptual change. I really appreciate how the texts suggested that one of the best things teachers can do to support students was to provide them with challenges that question their prior knowledge and allow for conceptual shifts to occur. This resonates with me, as the AST framework seems to really focus on this method of encouraging student-driven inquiry to uncover their own knowledge.
Overall, I feel as if the readings this week really helped me to understand the AST framework that my science educator cohort has been diving into. By supporting our students’ own internal conflicts, the connections between concepts (beliefs) can become even stronger.
Hi Nick,
When reading through this week’s readings I also had AST in the back of my mind a lot and trying to think about how the work of these researchers was embedded in AST. It helped me understand why it is important to consider and incorporate students’ prior knowledge.
I think I agree with your disagreement of the theory of short revolutions of thinking seen by rapid periods of growth. The only thing I can think of to support these so-called short revolutions is an “aha moment.” When I have an aha moment and everything finally comes together I do feel like I have a rapid period of growth. However, that growth does not come out of nowhere. This is after many small shifts in understanding and organization. Furthermore, after I have an aha moment I am still likely to experience more small reorganizations.