The durability of conceptual change in learning the concept of weight in the case of a pulley in balance

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 461-482

  Hakkarainen, Olavi ^a   Ahtee, Maija ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Cognitive conflict; Conceptual change; Learning intervention; Weight

Indexed keywords

EID: 34047094265     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-006-9048-5     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ahtee, M. & Hakkarainen, O. (2005). Importance of the order of demonstrations in changing pupils' conceptions. NORDINA, Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1, 31-42.
2. Champagne, A.B., Klopfer, L.E. & Anderson, J.H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1074-1079.
3. Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J.D. & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
4. Chinn, C.A. & Brewer, W.F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623-654.
5. Cohen, L., Mannion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
6. Dekkers, P.J.J.M. & Thijs, G.D. (1998). Making productive use of students' initial conceptions in developing the concept of force. Science Education, 82, 31-51.
7. diSessa, A.A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
8. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E. & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the "cognitive conflict" strategy for conceptual change - some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74, 555-569.
9. Galili, I. (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: Historical and educational perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1073-1093.
10. Galili, I. & Bar, V. (1992). Motion implies force: Where to expect vestiges of the misconception? International Journal of Science Education, 14, 63-81.
11. Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42, 119-139.
12. Hakkarainen, O. & Ahtee, M. (2005). Pupils' mental models of a pulley in balance. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 4, 26-34.
13. Ioannides, C. & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meaning of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2, 5-62.
14. Ivarsson, J., Schoultz, J. & Säljö, R. (2002). Map reading versus mind reading: Revisiting children's understanding of the shape of the earth. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 77-99). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15. Kang, S., Scharmann, L.C. & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34, 71-96.
16. Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S.S., Kim, J.W., Kwon, H.G. & Park, H.C. (2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 585-603.
17. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
18. Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Marton, F. & Trigwell, K. (2000). Variatio est mater studiorum. Higher Education Research & Development, 19, 381-395.
20. Marton, F., Runesson, U. & Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A.B.M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Mildenhall, P.T. & Williams, J.S. (2001). Instability in students' use of intuitive and Newtonian models to predict motion: The critical effect of the parameters involved. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 643-660.
22. Nussbaum, J. & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183-200.
23. Palmer, D. (2001). Students' alternative conceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about gravity. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 691-706.
24. Pang, M.F. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the phenomenographic movement [1]. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 145-156.
25. Parker, J. & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in primary teachers' learning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 89-111.
26. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P. & Gretzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
27. Saari, H. & Viiri, J. (2003). A research-based teaching sequence for teaching the concept of modelling to seventh-grade students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1333-1352.
28. Schoultz, J., Säljö, R. & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children's understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44, 103-118.
29. Tao, P.K. & Gunstone, R.F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 859-882.
30. Tsai, C.C. (2000). Enhancing science instruction: The use of 'conflict maps.' International Journal of Science Education, 22, 285-302.
31. Tsai, C.C. & Chang, C.Y. (2005). Last effects of instruction guided by the conflict map: Experimental study of learning about the causes of the seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 1089-1111.
32. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
33. Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research: State of the art and future directions. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 3-13). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
34. Vosniadou, S. (2001). Mental models in conceptual development. In L. Magnani & N.J. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
35. Välijärvi, J., Linnakylä, P., Kupari, P., Reinikainen, P. & Arffman, I. (2002). The Finnish success in PISA-and some reasons behind it. PISA 2000. OECD PISA. Jyväskylä: Kirjapaino Oma Oy.
36. Webb, L. & Morrison, I. (2000). The consistency of primary children's conceptions about the earth and its gravity. School Science Review, 81, 99-104.