A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines

The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 88-108

  diSessa, Andrea A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84954135040     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139519526.007     Document Type: Chapter

References (51)

1. Baillargeon, R. (1986). Representing the existence and the location of hidden objects: Object permanence in 6- and 8-month infants. Cognition, 23, 21-41.
2. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
3. Carey, S. (1988). Reorganization of knowledge in the course of acquisition. In S. Strauss (Ed.), Ontogeny, phylogeny, and historical development (pp. 1-27). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4. Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind (pp. 257-291). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. Scholnick, K. Nelson, S. Gelman, & P. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget’s legacy (pp. 293-326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In F. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129-160). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
7. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.
8. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 16 (pp. 3-56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
9. diSessa, A. A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 15-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225; Responses to commentary, 261-280. (Cognition and Instruction Monograph № 1).
11. diSessa, A. A. (1996). What do "just plain folk" know about physics? In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching, and Schooling (pp. 709-730). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.
12. diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why "conceptual ecology" is a good idea. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory andpractice (pp. 29-60). Dortrecht: Kluwer.
13. diSessa, A. A. (in press). The construction of causal schemes: Learning mechanisms at the knowledge level. Cognitive Science.
14. diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence vs. fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843-900.
15. diSessa, A. A., & Wagner, J. F. (2005). What coordination has to say about transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 121-154). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
16. Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481-490.
17. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. (1997). Words, thoughts, and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. (1994). The theory 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.
19. Gruber, H., & Voneche, J. (1977). The essential Piaget. New York: Basic Books.
20. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (1987). A private universe. Video. Annenberg/CPB: www.learner.org.
22. Hawkins, D. (1978). Critical barriers to science learning. Outlook, 29, 3-23.
23. Hewson, P., & Hennesy, M. G. (1992). Making status explicit: A case study of conceptual change. In R. Duit, F. Goldberb, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical and empirical studies (pp. 176-187). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
24. Hewson, W. H., & Hewson, M. G. A. (1983). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1-13.
25. Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 51-74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children’s naive thinking about the biological world. New York: Psychology Press.
27. Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, C. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2, 5-61.
28. Kapon, S., & diSessa, A. A. (2012). Reasoning through instructional analogies. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 261-310.
29. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1988). The child as a theoretician, not an inductivist. Mind and Language, 3(3), 183-195.
30. Keil, F. (1994). The birth and nurturance of concepts by domains: The origins of concepts of living things. In L. Hirschfield & S. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 234-254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32. 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). London; NY: Cambridge University Press.
33. Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243-264). New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. McCloskey, M. (1983a). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-323). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. McCloskey, M. (1983b, April). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 122-130.
36. Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the "at rest" condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, 20, 10-14.
37. Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L. Resnick & L. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum (pp. 129-149). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
38. Nercessian, N. (1992). How do scientists think? In F. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 3-44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
39. Pfundt, H, & Duit, R. (1988). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. Second Edition. Kiel, Germany: IPN.
40. 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(2), 211-227.
41. 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. CognitionandInstruction, 15, 317-393.
42. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
43. Spelke, E. S., Phillips, A., & Woodword, A. (1995). Infants’ knowledge of object motion and human action. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 44-78). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
44. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1990). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive science, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147-176). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
45. Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Tiberghien, A. (1980). Modes and conditions of learning: The learning of some aspects of the concept of heat. In W. Archenhold, R. Driver, A. Orton, & C. Wood-Robinson (Eds.), Cognitive development research in science andmathematics: Proceedings of an international symposium (pp. 288-309). Leeds, UK: University of Leeds.
47. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
48. Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1, 205-221.
49. Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naive physics. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 61-76). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
50. Wellman, H., & Gelman, S. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337-375.
51. Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 267-298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.