Conceptual change-multiple routes, multiple mechanisms: A commentary on Ohlsson (2009)

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 48-57

  Chinn, Clark A ^a   Samarapungavan, Ala ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60649100075     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520802616291     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Amsel, E., & Brock, S. (1996). The development of evidence evaluation skills. Cognitive Development, 11, 523-550.
2. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626-639.
3. Browne, J. (1995). Charles Darwin; Voyaging. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Brush, S. G. (1995). Dynamics of theory change: The role of predictions. PSA 1994, 2, 133-145.
5. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Vol. 15. Cognitive models of science (pp. 129-186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
6. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199.
7. Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61-82). New York: Routledge.
8. Chinn, C. A. (1997). A microgenetic study of learning about molecules and chemical reactions. Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
9. Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 355-383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Chinn, C. A. (2008). Promoting growth in scientific reasoning: A yearlong study of middle-school students learning through model-based inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
11. Chinn, C. A. (2009). Effects of explicit and refutational texts on science learning: A test of four theories. Manuscript in preparation.
12. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
13. 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.
14. Chinn, C. A., Duschl, R. A., Duncan, R. G., Pluta, W. J., Buckland, L. A., Ruppert, J., et al. (2008). Promoting growth in scientific reasoning: A yearlong microgenetic study of middle-school students learning through model-based inquiry. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
15. Chinn, C. A., Hung, C.-C., Buckland, L. A., & Pluta, W. F. (2009). Learning through inquiry on the topics of photosynthesis and cellular respiration. Manuscript in preparation.
16. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 327-343.
17. Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2001). Distinguishing between understanding and belief. Theory Into Practice, 40, 235-241.
18. Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2008). Learning to use scientific models: Multiple dimensions of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 191-225). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
19. Clement, J., Brown, D. E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding "anchoring conceptions" for grounding instruction on students' intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554-565.
20. Dietrich, E. (2000). Analogy and conceptual change, or you can't step into the same mind twice. In E. Dietrich & A. B. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines (pp. 265-294). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Echevarria, M. (2003). Anomalies as a catalyst for middle school students' knowledge construction and scientific reasoning during science inquiry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 357-374.
22. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
23. Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24. Grotzer, T. A. (2003). Learning to understand the forms of causality implicit in scientifically accepted explanations. Studies in Science Education, 39, 1-74.
25. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116-159.
26. Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128-167.
27. Hapgood S., Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Teacher, text, and experience: A case of young children's scientific inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 455-505.
28. Hayes, B. K., Goodhew, A., Heit, E., & Gillan, J. (2003). The role of diverse instruction in conceptual change. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 253-276.
29. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 495-538.
30. Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 11-34.
32. Johnson, S. K., & Stewart, J. (2002). Revising and assessing explanatory models in a high school genetics class: A comparison of unsuccessful and successful performance. Science Education, 86, 463-480.
33. Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 748-769.
34. Keane, M. T. (1996). On adaptation in analogy: Tests of pragmatic importance and adaptability in analogical problem solving. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 1062-1085.
35. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317-333). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
40. Law, N., & Lee, Y. (2004). Using an iconic modelling tool to support the learning of genetics concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 38, 118-141.
41. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
42. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1063-1080.
45. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233-265). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53-78.
48. Muller, D. A., Sharma, M. D., & Reimann, P. (2008). Raising cognitive load with linear multimedia to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 92, 278-296.
49. Ohlsson, S. (2009/this issue). Resubsumption: A possible mechanism for conceptual change and belief revision. Educational Psychologist, 44, 20-40.
50. Reiser, B. J., Smith, B. K., Tabak, I., Steinmuller, F., Sandoval, W. A., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Samarapungavan, A. (1992). Children's judgments in theory choice tasks: Scientific rationality in childhood. Cognition, 45, 1-32.
52. Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Students' models of the immune response: Difficulties in coordinating spatio-temporal, structural, and functional aspects of distributed models. Manuscript in preparation.
53. Samarapungavan, A., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Patrick, H. (2008). Learning science through inquiry in kindergarten. Science Education, 92, 868-908.
54. Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. W. (1994). Do children have epistemic constructions about explanatory frameworks: Examples from naive ideas about the origin of species. In A. Ram & K. Eiselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 778-783). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. W (1997). Children's thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21, 147-177.
56. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55.
57. Schulz, L. E., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Causal learning across domains. Developmental Psychology, 40, 162-176.
58. Schwartz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 165-205.
59. Shapere, D. (1989). Evolution and continuity in scientific change. Philosophy of Science, 56, 419-437.
60. Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 261-289.
61. Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177-237.
62. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Grosslight, L., & Davis, H. (1997). Teaching for understanding: A study of students' preinstruction theories of matter and a comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 317-393.
63. Smith, J. P., III, diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993/1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
64. Smith, M. U., & Siegel, H. (2004). Knowing, believing, and understanding: What goals for science education? Science & Education, 13, 553-582.
65. Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66. Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67. Thagard, P. (1990). The conceptual structure of the chemical revolution. Philosophy of Science, 57, 183-209.
68. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
69. Wiser, M., & Amin, T. (2001). "Is heat hot?" Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11, 331-355.
70. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172-223.