Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2010, 6(2), 101-110 Conceptual Change in Science: A Process of Argumentation George Zhou University of Windsor, Windsor, CANADA Received 18 September 2009; accepted 13 March 2010 Learning is a process of knowledge construction, individually and socially. It has both rational and irrational features. From this stance, the paper reviews an earlier model of conceptual change and its related pedagogical interventions for their inadequate attention to the irrational and social dimensions of learning. More recent developments in conceptual change pedagogy advocate the incorporation of motivational constructs and social-cultural factors, but fail to explicitly address some important issues in science education. In order to advance the conceptual change theory, the paper proposes an argument approach to teaching for conceptual change. It embraces what past models or approaches have achieved while simultaneously addressing their shortcomings. Keywords: Argument, Cognitive Conflict, Conceptual Change, Meta-Cognition. INTRODUCTION instruction (Clement, 1982). A restructuring of preconceptions is required for learning under these Students come to school classrooms with their own circumstances. This restructuring is referred to as understanding of the world (Driver et al., 1985). conceptual change (Vosniadou, 1999). It carries an Literature has referred to students’ ideas as implication that students’ less acceptable conceptions “preconceptions” (Clement, 1982), “misconceptions” are replaced by more sophisticated scientific concepts (Helm 1980), “naïve or intuitive ideas” (McCloskey, that are capable of accounting for phenomena where 1983; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985), “alternative preconceptions were unable to do so. frameworks” (Driver & Erickson, 1983), or “alternative In addition to identifying students’ preconceptions, conceptions” (Gilbert & Watts, 1983). In consideration scholars have proposed various models and strategies to that students’ conceptions are formed before receiving describe or facilitate teaching for conceptual change. formal instruction in class, this paper will use the term These works normally derived from Kuhn’s philosophy “preconception.” A plethora of studies have been of science (Kuhn, 1970) and Piaget’s cognitive conducted to identify preconceptions in numerous developmental theory (Piaget, 1970). The concepts and scientific content areas (e.g. Bar et al., 1997; Bishop & terminologies Kuhn and Piaget used, including Anderson, 1990; Clement, 1982; Erickson, 1979, 1980; “anomaly,” “revolution,” “cognitive conflict,” McCloskey, 1983; Taber 1998).. A common conclusion “disequillibration,” and “accommodation” frequently merging out of these studies is that preconceptions are appears in the relevant literature. The proposed teaching often at odds with scientific ideas (Driver & Erickson, strategies share a common process that involves first 1983) and continue to persist following traditional creating cognitive conflict before providing a new framework (Hewson & Hewson, 1988). This paper will Correspondence to: George Zhou, critically analyze the conceptual change literature, Assocaite Professor of Science Education, examine the views of both science educators and Faculty of Education, University of Windsor educational psychologists on this topic, and propose an 401 Sunset Ave. Windsor, ON, Canada N9B 3P4 argument model for conceptual change based on an E -mail: [email protected] analysis of the significance of argument in both science development and science education. Copyright © 2010 by EURASIA ISSN: 1305-8223 G. Zhou change can occur. These conditions could be briefly State of the literature described in terms of students’ dissatisfaction with the There is a plethora of research studies on student old conception and the intelligibility, plausibility, and preconceptions about the natural phenomena. fruitfulness of the new conception. Although there exists an abundance of ways to Posner et al.’s model attracted much attention from deal with such difficulties, there is a lack of and a science educators. Most theoretical analysis and practical need for studies dealing with students' progress strategies for conceptual change constructed during the according to the instruction that they are given. 1980s and 1990s were based on or closely related to this The theoretical thinking of conceptual change model (Smith et al., 1993). For example, Nussbaum and focuses on cognitive conflict. However cognitive Novick (1981) suggested a three step approach: (a) conflict is often insufficient to induce change. making children’s alternative frameworks explicit to them, b) inducing dissatisfaction by presenting evidence Contribution of this paper to the literature that does not fit, (c) presenting the new framework and explaining how it can account for the anomaly. The paper critically analyzes a “cold” conceptual Champagne et al. (1985) suggested the teacher to give change model developed by science educators and students opportunities to become aware of their the “warm” models proposed by educational preconceptions by arguing their own interpretations, psychologies. then present the scientific explanation, and lead the class The paper offers new insights into the role of to compare students’ interpretations with the scientific argument in science development and science explanation. Minstrell (1985) proposed four education. It points out that it is the argument, not instructional stages: (a) engaging students’ the experiment that drives the discourse of preconceptions, (b) using lab activities or other science. Experiment is one of the measures that experiences that are discrepant with students’ provide scientists with insights and justification for preconceptions, (c) encouraging students to resolve the their arguments. However, the interpretation of discrepancies through class discussion, and (d) experimental results can vary between scientists. providing students with opportunities to apply newly The paper proposes an authentic way of teaching encountered scientific ideas. science which brings argument into the classroom. Empirical studies, which attempt to bridge the gap This argument approach to teaching science for between a personally held concept and the scientific conceptual change is a general one that is view, however have generally revealed that applicable to a wide range of domains in order to preconceptions are resistant to change. Clement (1982) close the gap between the needs of learners and provided one example of Aristotelian versus Newtonian designs of instruction. view of motion. In his study, 88% of pre-university physics students thought a coin experienced an upward force on the way up after it was thrown up. After the A “Cold” Model for Conceptual Change university mechanics course, there were still 75% of students who held this concept, namely “motion implies One of the earliest conceptual change models came force.” Studies have also documented that from Posner and his colleagues (Posner, et al., 1982). Its preconceptions are apparently changed in school development was inspired by Kuhn’s (1970) theory of settings but may quickly reassert themselves in the scientific revolution as Posner et al. stated that “a major broader context of daily life. Redish and Steinberg source of hypotheses concerning this issue [conceptual (1999) described a case in which a student struggled change] is the contemporary philosophy of science…” with Newton’s 3rd law. The student knew what the law (p. 211). In Kuhn’s picture of scientific progress, some was, but she changed her answer numerous times necessary preconditions can be detected for scientific between the physics class model and her common sense revolutions. They include the appearance of anomalies for one particular test question which asked whether a that eventually lead to scientists’ dissatisfaction with the truck or a car exerted a bigger force during a mutual old paradigm, the appearance of a new paradigm that collision between the two. The common-speech provides scientists with a choice, and the merits of the wording of the question brought up her common sense: new paradigm such as solving more problems, more “Larger objects exert a larger force.” The difficulty that accurate predictions, closer match with subjective practical efforts have encountered in facilitating matter and more compatibility with other specialties. conceptual change forces scholars to question the Paralleling these conditions for scientific revolution, accountability of Posner et al.’s model. Is there Posner et al. (1982) state that there are several cognitive something wrong with it? conditions that must be fulfilled before any conceptual 102 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 101-110 Conceptual Change in Science Learning and Irrational Factors Learning Has a Dimension of Social Construction Pintrich et al. (1993) criticize Posner et al.’s model as a “cold” model because it overlooked the irrational Posner et al.’s model also lacks a clear account of characteristics of learning. This overlooking is clearly socialcultural factors for learning. It describes that when reflected in one statement Posner and his colleagues students become dissatisfied with their original beliefs, made in their paper: “Our central commitment in this they will try to find an alternative one that is intelligible, study is that learning is a rational activity” (Posner et al., plausible, and fruitful. This description focuses