The issue of conceptual change has been one of importance to educational researchers for a number of years. Posner et al. (1982), Hewson and Hewson (1984) and Chi (2009) among others have postulated that the child does not enter the classroom as an empty vessel awaiting the inpouring of information of the teacher but that they in fact have conceptions that are sometimes rigorous and deeply rooted in their mental framework. Children grow and develop these concepts because it is through these concepts that they are able to “make sense” of the world around them (Vosniadou et al., 2001). Similarly studies by Zirbel (2006) have shown that because students are not “blank slates”, they enter the classroom with formulated theories on how the world is connected and these conceptions sometimes are “robust” (Slotta & Chi, 2006) and well defined. Therefore there is a tendency to make associations so that they can better be able to relate to the experience they interact with in the learning environment.
Consequently, conceptual change in science learning is defined as the process whereby pre-conceptions about a specific concept is modified or completely changed through the introduction of new material (Carey, 2000; Duit, Treagust, & Widodo, 2008; Reiner, Slotta, Chi, & Resnick, 2000; Vosniadou, 2007a, 2008). The previous definition however, does not capture the complexity associated with conceptual change or the conditions necessary for conceptual change. Research has suggested problems associated with conceptual change can be attributed to the inability of schools to structure effective
17
means of reforming the instructional process through which students can directly engage in the teaching and learning process so as to overcome this difficulty (Gorodestksy & Keiny, 2002; Sinatra, 2002; Streveler, Brown, Herman, & Montfort, 2014). The call for reformation of the instructional process challenges the idea of simple memorization of facts and rote learning. These approaches have been discussed as inadequate in equipping students with the ability to restructure their naïve theories (Slotta & Chi, 2006;
Vosniadou et al., 2001). Furthermore Vosniadou (2007) argues that conceptual change is domain-specific meaning students hold distinctive thoughts about concepts in a particular domain which provides strong constraints on how the process of learning and
understanding is approached. In order to make sense of new knowledge or unfamiliar information, children tend to form theories labeled as naïve theories which are domain- specific. Consequently, when they are exposed to new knowledge these naïve theories are both reinforced and built upon or they experience a change in belief referred to as a conceptual change. Zirbel (2006) also believes that conceptual change is difficult because our brains are created to build upon prior ideas given that learning is a process that
evolves from birth to death. The pattern of association that develops over time is
dependent on each new experience as our brain goes through the process of linking new experience or knowledge with an existing framework.
Another group of researchers argue learning as a rational activity in which the student engages in a kind of inquiry with the objective of structuring ideas from the evidence that supports them (Posner et al., 1982; Vosniadou, 2007a). It is therefore reasoned that learning is in itself conceptual change. This school of thought is influenced by the work of Thomas Kuhn and his belief that learning causes a paradigm shift. Other
18
researchers have characterize this shift as evidence of conceptual change (Elen, Clarebout, Léonard, & Lowyck, 2007; Von Secker & Lissitz, 1999). However, this paradigm shift is easier said than achieved. Chi, cited in Slotta, Chi and Joram (1995, p. 374) discusses “some misconceptions are easily removed in the course of instruction whereas others are characteristically robust”. Salient questions raised by Chi (2008) in relation to interacting factors surrounding conceptual change are “in what ways is knowledge misconceived? Why is such misconceived knowledge resistant to change? What constitutes a change in prior knowledge? And how should instruction be designed to promote conceptual change?” (p. 61). In support of the issues raised by these questions, Holton, Verma and Biswas (2008) discuss where misconceptions in scientifically complex concepts exist there is a requirement of a more targeted and intense approach since it is argued misconceptions can be attributed to the level of abstraction. Reiner, Slotta, Chi and Resnick (2000) designates this possibility as a tendency of “novices to adopt substance- based conceptions when reasoning about abstract concepts such as light, heat and
electricity” (p. 8). One of the main choices to dealing with abstract concepts is the use of instructional analogies to elicit conceptual change. This is usually because through the use of analogies students are able to relate a known concept to an unknown. Posner et al. (1982) based on the work of Piaget attribute this change in belief through two types of modification processes: assimilation where students rely on the existing concepts to understand new phenomena or accommodation where the central concept is replaced or re-organized based on the new information or new experience.
However diSessa (1998) refers to conceptual change as the addition and deletion of consulting elements that forms the big picture. A concept, as a part of the whole,
19
allows the individual to develop an understanding of how a system or process works. With exposure to new knowledge, whether through instruction or experience, the student has to re-think their previous beliefs and then make a decision to either reject this new information, add it to their preconceived belief or put away the belief all together. Conceptual change, he argues, should draw the line between memorization and gradual changes in belief. If concepts are at the core of our knowledge and form the basis for what we believe then conceptual change is more than just the application of new
knowledge. Conceptual change has to be seen as a process that starts at the foundation of our knowledge and experience and involves the shifting and restructuring of the current concepts.
A more historical approach to the discussion of students’ conceptions and conceptual is offered by Duit and Treagust (2003). They explain early research started with Piaget, constructivists’ ideas followed shortly after in conjunction with the Piagetian conditions of assimilation and accommodation. These researchers propose, along with Yan Yip (2001), Limon (2001) and Gorodestksy and Keiny (2002), that conceptual change is more than conceptual but has more emphasis on the change that the learner must undergo themselves. Conceptual change is therefore claimed to take place at various levels through different situations. In the world of science and scientific concepts,
conceptual change is denoted as the pathways of learning from students’ preconceptions to the actual science concepts to be learned through effective instructions (Limon, 2001). The typical mode of conceptual change involves the teacher encouraging students to use alternative frameworks that challenges their prior knowledge and cause dissatisfaction through the use of various instructional strategies.
20
The National Research Council (2012) reports that undergraduate education is marked by moving students along a continuous path between novice and expert understanding. Recommendations in order to achieve this goal include being able to identify what students know and how these ideas align themselves with the scientific knowledge that instruction will stimulate and how to restructure those ideas that are not in alignment. The report calls for conceptual change based on the idea that students have incorrect knowledge likely to be in conflict with the new material to be learned.
Nevertheless, Slotta and Chi (2006), Vosniadou (2007) and Smith et al. (1993) discuss that it is usually challenging and difficult to promote conceptual change solely through the use of instruction because conceptual change is a slow and tedious process and some concepts are more deep rooted than others. For conceptual change to be effective,
immense emphasis needs to be placed on students pre-existing understanding and beliefs that they use to form hypotheses or models about how the world works. In order to change these beliefs, students must come in contact with empirical evidence that dispels their previous understanding (Chan, 2001). Even though classroom instructions might cause conceptual change, these instructional strategies, on their own, it is not guaranteed to ensure that this new belief is retained throughout the course of study, or even the lifetime of the student. It is on this foundation that cognitivists have purported that students will continue to change their conceptions as they relate with more content and learning processes.
21