Course Assignment-Reflection 2

All students enter every class each day with preconceptions. These perceptions are based on life experience, what is been learned in the home from the family, through books they may have read, television shows a may have watched, things they have seen with their own eyes throughout their lives, and even discussions with their friends. These preconceptions or beliefs can sometimes contradict ideas and concepts students are learning. In order for students to accept these ideas and concepts they must go through the process which has been discussed in this week’s reading known as The Theory of Conceptual Change.

 According to the Study Published in 1982 by Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog (this week’s reading) this process happens under certain conditions. The first condition is that there must be dissatisfaction with one’s existing concepts. This means that the individual must lose faith in their previously held ideas or concepts due to the fact that they have found circumstances that no longer fit or it is unable to answer certain questions posed. The second is that the concept must be intelligible. The new concept must be one which the individual can understand how it fits together sometimes through analogies and metaphors which bring clarity to the concept. The final condition is that the new concept appears initially to be plausible. It must seem to have the ability to resolve problems created by its previously held concept. The final condition is that the concept should point to the possibilities of being successful within the research program. It should appear to open or expand new areas of inquiry within the field or topic(Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). According to Duit and Treagust:

In the conceptual change model, students dissatisfaction with a prior conception was believed to initiate dramatic or revolutionary conceptual change and was enabled in radical constructivist epistemological views with an emphasis on the individual’s concepts and his/her conceptual development (Duit, & Treagust, 2003, p. 674).

This basically means that individuals are able to take a U-turn in their previously held perceptions or beliefs once going through this process.

One of the most important concepts that I found through this theory is that this is a process that takes time. Individuals go through several steps as they work out the old concepts and work in the new concepts. As educators we must understand that for many students that’s less like flipping a switch and more like growing a beard. And as we as science educators plant the seeds of new ideas and concepts we may never see them bear fruit.

 Corbern conveys, “… Consistent with the Vygotsky’s theory that emphasizes various models of social interaction in the development of a broad spectrum of thought processes, rather than focusing on the use of argumentation in the development of hypothetical-deductive logic” (Cobern, 1994, p. 2). Basically saying the conceptual change model is a process which individuals go through with others and come to the conclusion on their own not by having others argue for the new concept against their previously held concepts but as they find for themselves the new idea or concept works for them. I am including a link to a website which focuses on conceptual change theory: http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Conceptual_Change . To illustrate this process I have included a short educational documentary film:

 

References

Cobern, W. W. (1994). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Scientific Literacy And Cultural Studies Project, 15, 1-32.. Retrieved: http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/science_slcsp/15

Duit, R, & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal Of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688. dio: 10.1080/0950069032000076652 

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. H., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodations of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.