Reconceptualizing Change in the Cognitive Construction of Knowledge Janice A. Dole and Gale M. Sinatra Department of Educational Studies University of Utah How is knowledg6 qukdand repmenfed in memory? By what pmws do individuals come to change their &a, anreption$.or knowledge? Although the fint qnedon has been central to cognitivepsychologiats' nssarch Wdaa formsny years, relatively leas is known about the ohangeprocess. Wewarnine3 nssarchlilalUuMtohsdeaour~dthepmceas of kwwls4pc change. In partleular. we draw on models of conwphd chunge Prom cognitive psychology, social psycholo$y, and science education. Each model ad& a IWW perspcctiveon the change proms. B& on the 1ltemturc Prom these models of change, we developed a new model that qmmtr our monceptualization of the change procesrr. We dmdithe model aod use it to point out new anas of rascareh to be admesJed P~shologyhas, at its foundation, an abiding interest in Larkin, McDe.rmot&Simon. & Sion, 1981; Vass, Greane, tmbtmdhg the construction of knowledge. How do indi- Post. & Pemer, 1983). Rtsearchers have wramined discourse viduals come to perceive, know, remrnber, and lm?How knowledgc-k.nowledgs about language and how it works do individuals acquire new knowIedge? How is knowledge (hlcCutchen, 1986). Another aspect of knowledge that has qmmted and organized in memory? How do individuals been extensively studied is saategic knowledgtihrowkdge come to change their knowledge? TBwe questions have about proceduresfor acoompliihing ago4or task (Alex& saved as wncq)hral framewoh fm psychological, as well & Judy, 1988; 1. R Andason. 1983a; hwat, 1989). as philowphid, thought for centuria (Hunt, 1993). Until recently, questiohs about the nature of knowledge A major wnaibution of cognitivepsychology has been the and its representation have received far mope thaorctical and conoqrtaalization of knowledge as memory npnsentations reserach attention than have questions about how iadividuals in the fOllll of dpts, fmmes, or achemta (Anderson & acquire knowledge. F'iaget distingubflbd himBOlfas a notablc Fearson, lW,RumeIhart& Ortony. 19n; Shank&AbeIson, exception to his cmatempo&es in that he spcnf his life 1977, Spiro, 1980). Schemata am defined as "packets of sntdying knowledge acquisition. He dcswibed two pmcuim intagmted information on various topics" (Hunt, 1993, p. involved in acquisition. He used the term &mihion for the 530). Throughout the 1970s and 1980s. cognitive psycholo- addition of mfmation to existing knowledge structureg and gists wan intmstcd in describing the name of these packets accommodarion for the modification or change of existing of iaformation. Spiro (1980) demonstratsd the constructive knowledge smtuns (Piaget, 1985). Mope recently, theae agd comp1ex nahm of achemam and highlighted contextual views of knowledge scqnisition are well captured by the fmkm-incl&gtasks, texts, and situational contexts-that pcrspecrive of wgnirive ~onstncctivism(Cow, 1994). Con- influcnccd how knowledge is orgenid in memory. structivism placGs prime imp~tanceon the individual's ac- Recmtly, qnitive meamharp have come to view knowl- tive role in the knowledge acquisition process. edge and schemata as multidinsional (Jetton, Rupley. & Researchers afte~Piaget fine-tuned the o~nstructsof as- Willson, 1995). For example, meamhem havedifferentiated similation and ~ccommodation.Schema theorists used the novics and expsrrpxpsrrpknowledge strumum~in subject-matter term accrerion for the assimilation of new factual informarion domains (Chase & Simon, 1973; Chi, Glaser, & Rees, 1982; that fits into existing knowledge smctuns (Rumclhaa & Norman, 1981). Cognitive psychologi&t3 dssuibed various mechanisms of knowledge acquisition, such as addition, de- letion, discximihation, and generalization (Chi, 1992). that I result ih assimilation or "weak raptruenning" (Vosniadou & Brewer, 1987). For example, students who attend a biology searchers have attempted to more fully descnbe the process lecture may readily assimdate new knowledge about plant whereby conceptual knowledge comes to be reorganized (see reproduction into their existing knowledge base about plants. Carey, 1992: Chi, 1992: Thagard, 1992). By contrast, the change pmcess, or accommodation, has Second, we tum to work in science education. Science- been a much more thorny issue for researchers interested in education researchers have been more influenced by the his- knowledge acquisition. Suppose those same students who tory and philosophy of science and have described how attended the biology lecture on plant reproduction attended knowledge acquisition and restructuring in scientific commu- another session on human reproduction. This time, students nities is similar to knowledge acquisition and restructuring in may not easily assimilate new information about how human learners (Carey. 1985; Driver & Easley, 1978; Osbome & beings reproduce. Students may have their own ideas about Wiarock, 1983; Posner. Strike, Hewson. & Gertzog, 1982). human reproduction. lhcy may not be willing to hear the These mearchers likened the paradigm shifts made by the instructor's ideas, or they may listen to them but reject them scientific uwmunity (Kuhn, 1970) to conceptual changes (Chinn & Brewer, 1993). If students do make radical shifts in made by students as they developed new frameworks through their thinking, then accommodation would be said to have conslrwting their understanding of various scientific phe- taken place. nomena. Despite critiques that the process of knowledge Vosniadou and Brewer (1987) described the accommoda- restruchuing in students differs fundamentally from that of tion process as "radical restructuring" or 'khange in knowl- thescientific community (Pintrich,Marx. & Boyle, 1993). the edge that invofves the creation of new strucm [which] are Conceptual Change Model (CCM) still provides many useful constructed either to reinterpret old information or to account insights into the nature of the change process. for new information" (p. 52). Chi (1992) refwed to such We also turn to the field of social psychology. Social knowledge reorganization as "radcal conceptual change." psychologists have had a long-standing interest in change and and lhagard (1992) used the term "'conceptual revolution" to have generated an extensive body of research on how beliefs describe how one conceptual system can replace another. and attitudes can be changed. Researchers have studied fao- Regardless of the tern used, radical changes in one's think- tors related to learners, presenters, and specitic contexts that ing about any topic are usually difficult to attain. makeindividualsmore or less likely to consider andlearn new Lkspite differences among theorists in their description of information. Petty and Cacioppo's (1986) Elaboration Like- the accommodation process, there is one issue on which lihood Model (ELM)described the conditions necessary for change theorists appear to agm. That is, we still do not know change. Together, these pcrspectives and the reaeerch base enough about the mechanisms that produce knowledge provide a framework from which to reconccptualizcour view change (Siegler, 1996). Smith, di Scssa, andRoschelle (1993) of the change process. argued that an adequate theory of learning must not only We begin by defining key concepts in the cognitive and describe knowledge, but also provide. richer descriptions of social psychological literature as a context for describing how knowledge is transformed. Chi (1992) argued that too current models of change. Next, we review change models little is known about the conditions of knowledge repre- with particular attention to their similarities and diierences. sentations that may lead to change, such as how learners come Then we present our reconceptualization of the change proc- to remgnize that new information does not fit with their ess. Finally, we present a discussion of unaddnssed rescarcb existing conceptions. issues related to change models within a cognitive construc- Under what conditions is knowledge change likely or tivist framework unlikely to occur? What are potential sources of influences in OUTpurpose in generating a new model of change is to bringing about change? Is change likely to be temporary or providemearchers interested in the change procegs with new relatively long lasting? Weak or strong? What can educators insights and perspectives fhm three fields of research. Our do to facilitate the change pms?These questions are of model was not developedtoresolvea specificempiricalissue, central interest to educational researchers. but rather to integrate current theory and mearch from dif- To explore these issues, we turn to models in cognitive ferent disciplinary domains. We believe such an integration psychology, science education, and social psychology for will point to possible new and fruitful irreas for research for new insights into thechangeprocess. First, we examine recent those interested in learning as change. work on conceptual change within a cognitive psychological framework. How concepts come to be represented in memory and change in children's conceptual knowledge have been COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVIST central issues of concern in cognitive psychology since its PERSPECTIVES ON CHANGE inception (for examples of classic works in these areas, see Mar- 1979, and Rosch & Mavis. 1978). Current cogni- Cognitive psychologists have traditionally focused more at- tive psychological mearchers investigating change in con- tention on descrihingthe structure and function of knowledge