Research Matters - To The Science Teacher No. 8902 April 1, 1989

Research Matters - to the Science Teacher
No. 8902 April 1, 1989

Enhancing Learning Through Conceptual Change Teaching
by William C. Kyle, Jr., E. Desmond Lee Family, Professor of
Science Education, University of Missouri - St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
and James A. Shymansky, Professor of Science Education,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
Introduction
From the moment of birth infants begin to generate views about their new
environment. As children develop, there is a need construct meaning
regarding how and why things behave as they do. And, long before
children begin the process of formal education, they attempt to make
sense of the natural world. Thus, children begin to construct sets of ideas,
expectations, and explanations about natural phenomena to make
meaning of their everyday experiences. The ideas and explanations that
children generate form a complex framework for thinking about the world
and are frequently different from the views of scientists. These differing
frameworks are referred to in the literature as misconceptions, alternative
conceptions, or alternative frameworks. Since the early 1970s, research in
science education and cognitive science has enriched our understanding of
the importance of the ideas and explanations that students possess prior
to instruction. This research has direct implications concerning the nature
of learning science, as well as the process of teaching science.
Prior Knowledge and Conceptions of Students
Teachers have always recognized the need to start instruction "where the
student is." David Ausubel (1968) emphasized this by distinguishing
between meaningful learning and rote learning. For meaningful learning to
occur, new knowledge must be related by the learner to relevant existing
concepts in that learner's cognitive structure. For this reason, Ausubel
contends that, "The most important single factor influencing learning is
what the learner already knows." Ausubel also commented on the
importance of preconceptions in the process of learning, noting that they
are "amazingly tenacious and resistant to extinction...the unlearning of
preconceptions might well prove to be the most determinative single
factor in the acquisition and retention of subject-matter knowledge."
Perhaps the most comprehensive interdisciplinary assessment of children's

conceptions of science is the Learning in Science Project in New Zealand
(Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). The following examples, from the work of
the Learning in Science Project, exemplify conceptions that children ages
5 to 18 possess on a variety of topics, while contrasting those views with
the scientific perspective.
Living
Scientific Perspective: Living things are distinguished from nonliving

things in their ability to carry on the following life processes: movement;
metabolism; growth; responsiveness to environmental stimuli; and,
reproduction.
Children's Views: Objects are living if they move and/or grow. For
example, the sun, wind, and clouds are living because they move. Fires
are living because they consume wood, move, require air, reproduce
(sparks cause other fires), and give off waste (smoke).
Animals
Scientific Perspective: A plant is a producer.
Children's Views: A plant is something growing in a garden. Carrots and

cabbage from the garden are not plants; they are vegetables. Trees are
not plants; they are plants when they are little, but when they grow up
they are not plants. Seeds are not plants. Dandelions are not plants; they
are weeds. Plants are only things that are cultivated; the more food,
water, and sunlight they get the better. Plants take their food from the
environment. They have multiple sources of food. Photosynthesis is not
important to plants.
Electric Current
Scientific Perspective: A current of electricity, or electric current, is a

flow of electrically charged particles through a conductor.
Children's View: Electric current flows from battery to bulb and is used
up.
Force and Motion
Scientific Perspective: Force is a push or a pull on an object. A body

remains at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force.
children's Perspective: A body requires a force to keep it in motion.

Force is always in the direction of motion. There is no force acting upon a
body that is not in motion.
Gravity
Scientific Perspective: Gravity is a force between any two masses.

Gravity depends on the size of the masses and the distance between their
centers.
Children's Perspective: Gravity is something that holds us to the

ground. If there was no air there would be no gravity. For example, above
the earth's atmosphere there is no gravity, and you become "weightless".
Gravity increases with height above the earth's surface. It is associated
with downward falling objects.
Research related to students' conceptual reasoning and the elucidation of

alternative frameworks has also been conducted on the following scientific
concepts and/or topics: air and air pressure, density, dynamics, the earth,
ecological matter cycling, energy, heat and temperature, light and vision,
mechanics, natural selection, the particular nature of matter, and
respiration and photosynthesis (readers interested in more comprehensive
reviews should refer to Driver & Erickson, 1983; Driver, Guesne &
Tiberghien, 1985; Gilbert & Watts, 1983; West & Pines, 1985; as well as
publications available from The Institute for Research on Teaching).
Learning science for most students involves a process of conceptual

change. Anderson and Roth (in press) note that students who achieve an
understanding of a scientific topic successfully integrate accurate scientific
knowledge with their own personal knowledge of the world. Research
suggests, however, that many students fail to do this; instead, they view
scientific knowledge as being separate and distinct from their personal
knowledge. For these students science is merely a compilation of strange,
obscure facts rather than a system of conceptual schemes for
understanding their environment.
Formal science instruction does not change the alternative frameworks

held by many students. In fact, while we have referred to alternative
conceptions common to elementary school students have been found to
exist among high school students and college students. We observe many
adults who have conceptions that are substantially different from those of
scientists. With this in mind, if preconceptions are as tenacious as Ausubel
contends, how can teachers enhance the likelihood of conceptual
development and thereby improve students' science conceptions?
Teaching for Conceptual Change
Driver (1983) notes that the alternative conceptions that students have
constructed to interpret their experiences have been developed over an
extended period of time; one or two classroom activities are not going to
change those ideas. She emphasizes that students must be provided time
individually, in groups, and with the teacher to think and talk through the
implications and possible explanations of what they are observing-and this
takes time. Improving students' science conceptions may begin by
recognizing that "less is more." That is, we may need to decrease the
amount of new material introduced to students each year if we truly
desire to enhance their conceptions of scientific phenomenon.
In teaching for conceptual change, students must experience conflict with

their expectations. It is only reasonable that students would not accept a
new idea with first feeling that their existing views are unsatisfactory in
some way. Posner et. al. (1982) suggest that if students are going to
change their ideas:
1. They must become dissatisfied with their existing conditions.
2. The scientific conception must be intelligible.
3. The scientific conception must appear plausible.
4. The scientific conception must be useful in a variety of new situations.
Teaching for conceptual change then, demands a teaching strategy where

students are given time to: identify and articulate their preconceptions;
investigate the soundness and utility of their own ideas and those of
others, including scientists; and, reflect on and reconcile differences in
those ideas. The Generative Learning Model (GLM) is a teaching/learning
model that substantially provides this opportunity. In the GLM, the learner
is an active participant in the learning context rather than an empty cup
to be filled (refer to Osborne & Freyberg for a more detailed description of
the Generative Learning Model). The GLM has four instructional phases
aimed at enabling the learner to construct meaning. Using the GLM, a
teacher:
1. Ascertains students' ideas, expectations, and explanations prior to

instruction.
2. Provides a context through motivating experiences related to the
concept.
3. Facilitates the exchange of views and challenges students to
compare ideas, including the evidence for the scientific perspective.
4. Provides opportunities for students to use the new ideas (scientific
conceptions) in familiar settings.
Teachers who effectively implement the GLM promote a learning

environment that engages students in an active search and acquisition of
new knowledge. Learning is characterized by a process of interaction
between the student's mind and the stimuli providing new information.
Such a learning environment enables students to modify their existing
cognitive structures. Students experience a dynamic interaction between
their preconceptions and the appropriate scientific conceptions.
The generative model for teaching/learning acknowledges a constructivist

approach to the process of learning. That is, students construct meaning
from their experiences. This is precisely how Piaget viewed the process or
learning (1929/1969). Piaget referred to the process of acquisition and
incorporation of new data into an existing structure as "assimilation" and
the resulting modification of that structure as "accommodation." In
learning science then, the new facts, ideas, and concepts that are
acquired gain more meaning by being organized (assimilated) into a
cognitive structure; at the same time, the existing cognitive structure is
given further clarification and support, or perhaps even changed, by
incorporating new information (accommodating itself to the new data).
The instructional process to facilitating conceptual change must therefore:
1) identify and address students' alternative conceptions, 2) provide
opportunities for students' ideas to evolve, and 3) enable students' new
ideas to be applied in a context familiar to them.
Summary
If teachers are to improve students' science conceptions we must

recognize that:
 students come to science class with ideas,

 students' ideas are often different from scientists,
 students' preconceptions are strongly held,
 traditional instruction (rote learning) will not lead to
substantial conceptual change, and
 effective instructional strategies enable teachers to teach for
conceptual change and understanding.
The key to altering the ideas, explanations, and conceptions of science

that students possess is to find out and use what students already know.
The challenge of teaching science is to ensure that you do not leave intact
students' alternative conceptions or fill students with ideas and
explanations which have little chance of being understood. The conceptual
change teaching literature on generative learning may provide you with a
solution to that challenge.
References
Anderson, C. W., & Roth, K. J. (in press). Teaching for meaningful and
self-regulated learning of science. In J. Brophe (Ed.), Teaching for
meaningful and self-regulated learning. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, England: The
Open University Press.
Driver R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-Action: Some theoretical
and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in
science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). children's ideas in
science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Gilber, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and
alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education.
Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The
implications of children's science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Piaget, J. (1929/1969). The child's conception of the world. Totowa, NJ:
Littlefield, Adams, & Co.
Posner, G. J. Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual
change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
West, L. H., & Pines, A. L. (eds.). (1985). Cognitive structure and
conceptual change. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Research Matters - To The Science Teacher No. 8902 April 1, 1989

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Matters - To The Science Teacher No. 8902 April 1, 1989

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Matters - To The Science Teacher No. 8902 April 1, 1989

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Matters - to the Science Teacher

No. 8902 April 1, 1989

Prior Knowledge and Conceptions of Students

Perhaps the most comprehensive interdisciplinary assessment of children's

Scientific Perspective: Living things are distinguished from nonliving

Scientific Perspective: A plant is a producer.

Children's Views: A plant is something growing in a garden. Carrots and

Scientific Perspective: A current of electricity, or electric current, is a

Force and Motion

Scientific Perspective: Force is a push or a pull on an object. A body

children's Perspective: A body requires a force to keep it in motion.

Scientific Perspective: Gravity is a force between any two masses.

Children's Perspective: Gravity is something that holds us to the

Research related to students' conceptual reasoning and the elucidation of

Learning science for most students involves a process of conceptual

Formal science instruction does not change the alternative frameworks

Teaching for Conceptual Change

In teaching for conceptual change, students must experience conflict with

2. The scientific conception must be intelligible.

3. The scientific conception must appear plausible.

4. The scientific conception must be useful in a variety of new situations.

Teaching for conceptual change then, demands a teaching strategy where

1. Ascertains students' ideas, expectations, and explanations prior to

Teachers who effectively implement the GLM promote a learning

The generative model for teaching/learning acknowledges a constructivist

If teachers are to improve students' science conceptions we must

 students come to science class with ideas,

The key to altering the ideas, explanations, and conceptions of science

You might also like