Students’ Conceptions as Dynamically Emergent Structures

Science and Education

Volumn 23, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 1463-1483

  Brown, David E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901820856     PISSN: 09267220     EISSN: 15731901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11191-013-9655-9     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Amin, T. G. (2009). Conceptual metaphor meets conceptual change. Human Development,52(3), 165–197.
2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Self-organization in conceptual growth: Practical implications. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 504–519). New York: Routledge.
3. Brown, D. E. (1989). Students’ concept of force: The importance of understanding Newton’s third law. Physics Education,24(6), 353–358.
4. Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,29(1), 17–34.
5. Brown, D. E. (1993). Refocusing core intuitions: A concretizing role for analogy in conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,30(10), 1273–1290.
6. Brown, D. E. (2000). Merging dynamics: An integrating perspective on learning, conceptual change, and teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
7. Brown, D. E. (2010). Students’ conceptions—coherent or fragmented? And what difference does it make? Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
8. Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science,18(4), 237–261.
9. Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2013). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, (2nd ed., pp. 121–137). New York: Routledge.
10. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11. Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. K. Scholnick, K. Nelson, & P. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget’s Legacy (pp. 293–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,21(1), 13–19.
13. Cheng, M., & Brown, D. E. (2010). Conceptual resources in self-developed explanatory models: The importance of integrating conscious and intuitive knowledge. International Journal of Science Education,32(17), 2367–2392.
14. Cheng, M., & Brown, D. E. (2012). The role of metacognition in students’ development of explanatory ideas of magnetism. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.
15. Clark, D., & Jorde, D. (2004). Helping students revise disruptive experientially supported ideas about thermodynamics: Computer visualizations and tactile models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(1), 1–23.
16. Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction,24(4), 467–563.
17. Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Schleigh, S. P. (2011). Comparison of students’ knowledge structure coherence and understanding of force in the Philippines, Turkey, China, Mexico, and the United States. Journal of the Learning Sciences,20, 207–261.
18. Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2013). The knowledge integration perspective: Connections across research and education. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 520–538). New York: Routledge.
19. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics,50(1), 66–71.
20. Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.
21. Clement, J. J., & Brown, D. E. (2008). Using analogies and models in instruction to deal with students’ preconceptions. In J. J. Clement (Ed.), Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students:The role of analogy, imagery, and mental simulation (pp. 139–155). New York: Springer.
22. Clement, J. J., & Steinberg, M. S. (2002). Step-wise evolution of mental models of electric circuits: A “learning-aloud” case study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,11(4), 389–452.
23. Dagher, Z. (1998). The case for analogies in teaching science for understanding. In J. Mintzes, Wandersee, J., Novak, J. (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding (pp. 195–211). San Diego: Academic Press.
24. Dega, B. G., Kriek, J., & Mogese, T. F. (2013). Students’ conceptual change in electricity and magnetism using simulations: A comparison of cognitive perturbation and cognitive conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,50(6), 677–698.
25. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction,10(2 & 3), 105–225.
27. diSessa, A. A. (2008). A birds-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 35–60). New York: Routledge.
28. diSessa, A. A. (2013). A birds-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change, (2nd ed., pp. 31–48). New York: Routledge.
29. diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science,28, 843–900.
30. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, Ind.: National Education Service.
31. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography–STCSE. Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education (http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/download_stcse.html).
32. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology,22(3), 455–479.
33. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Boston: Kluwer.
34. Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (2004). Mechanisms of theory-formation in young children. Trends in Cognitive Science,8, 371–377.
35. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257–293). New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Gutwill, J. P., Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1999). Making their own connections: Students’ understanding of multiple models in basic electricity. Cognition and Instruction,17(3), 249–282.
37. Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction,12(2), 151–183.
38. Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Sciences,5, 97–127.
39. Hawkins, D. (1962). Messing about in science. Science and Children,2(5), 39–44.
40. Hofstadter, D. R. (2001). Analogy as the core of cognition. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 499–538). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
41. Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly,2, 5–61.
42. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence;an essay on the construction of formal operational structures. New York: Basic Books.
43. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44. Khine, M. S., & Saleh, I. M. (Eds.). (2011). Models and modeling: Cognitive tools for scientific enquiry. New York: Springer.
45. Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education,28(2–3), 143–178.
46. Koponen, I. T., & Pehkonen, M. (2010). Coherent knowledge structures of physics represented as concept networks in teacher education. Science & Education,19(3), 259–282.
47. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
50. Leander, K., & Brown, D. E. (1999). “You understand, but you don't believe it”: Tracing the stabilities and instabilities of interaction in a physics classroom through a multidimensional framework. Cognition and Instruction,17(1), 93–135.
51. Lewis, C., Pery, R., Hurd, J., & O’Connell, M. P. (2006). Lesson study comes of age in North America. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 273–281.
52. Li, S. C., Law, N., & Lui, K. F. A. (2006). Cognitive perturbation through dynamic modelling: A pedagogical approach to conceptual change in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,22, 405–422.
53. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.
54. Manson, S. M. (2001). Simplifying complexity: A review of complexity theory. Geoforum,32, 405–414.
55. Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education,96(5), 849–877.
56. Panagiotaki, G., Nobes, G., & Banerjee, R. (2006). Children’s representations of the earth: A methodological comparison. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,24(2), 353–372.
57. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking Press.
58. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics,26(2/3), 165–190.
59. 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.
60. Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). New York: Cambridge University Press.
61. Rusanen, A.-M., & Pöyhönen, S. (2012). Concepts in change. Science & Education,22(6), 1389–1403. doi:10.1007/s11191-012-9489-x.
62. Schneps, M. H., & Crouse, L. (2002). A private universe: Misconceptions that block learning [videorecording]. S. Burlington, Vt.: Annenberg/CPB.
63. Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,3(2), 115–163.
64. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. Albany: SUNY Press.
65. Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66. Thelen, E., & Bates, E. (2003). Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science,6(4), 378–391.
67. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
68. Towers, J., & Davis, B. (2002). Structuring occasions. Educational Studies in Mathematics,49, 313–340.
69. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. T., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
70. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning & Instruction,4, 45–69.
71. Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naïve physics. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. The Netherlands: Kluwer.
72. Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 11–30). New York: Routledge.
73. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology,24(4), 535–585.
74. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.
75. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
76. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ch. 1 & 3.
77. Wilensky, U. (2010). Netlogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL. Available at http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/.
78. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9(4), 625–636.
79. Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 267–298). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
80. Yates, J., Bessman, M., Dunne, M., Jertson, D., Sly, K., & Wendelboe, B. (1988). Are conceptions of motion based on a naive theory or on prototypes? Cognition,29, 251–275.