+
- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

  • Open Access

Using resource graphs to represent conceptual change

Michael C. Wittmann*

  • Department of Physics, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469-5709, USA
  • *Electronic address: wittmann@umit.maine.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020105 – Published 29 August, 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020105

Abstract

We introduce resource graphs, a representation of linked ideas used when reasoning about specific contexts in physics. Our model is consistent with previous descriptions of coordination classes and resources. It represents mesoscopic scales that are neither knowledge-in-pieces nor large-scale concepts. We use resource graphs to describe several forms of conceptual change: incremental, cascade, wholesale, and dual construction. For each, we give evidence from the physics education research literature to show examples of each form of conceptual change. Where possible, we compare our representation to models used by other researchers. Building on our representation, we analyze another form of conceptual change, differentiation, and suggest several experimental studies that would help understand the differences between reform-based curricula.

Article Text

References (91)

  1. A. A. diSessa, in Constructivism in the Computer Age, edited by G. Forman (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), p. 49.
  2. D. Hammer and A. Elby, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, edited by B. Fishman and S. O’Conner-Divelbiss (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2000), p. 4.
  3. J. Minstrell, in Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Bremen, Germany 1991, edited by R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, 1992), p. 110.
  4. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys.68 (Physics Education Research Supplement), S52 (2000).
  5. D. Hammer and A. Elby, in Personal Epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, edited by B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2002).
  6. A. Elby and D. Hammer, On the Substance of a Sophisticated Epistemology, Sci. Educ. 85, 554 (2001).
  7. D. Klahr and R. S. Siegler, in Developmental Psychology: An advanced textbook, edited by M. H. Bornstein and M. E. Lamb (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992).
  8. D. Tirosh, R. Staby, and S. Cohen, Cognitive conflict and intuitive rules, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1257 (1998).
  9. A. A. diSessa, Towards an epistemology of physics, Cogn. Instruct. 10, 105 (1993).
  10. M. Minsky, The Society of Mind (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1985).
  11. A. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1155 (1998).
  12. D. Hammer, Misconceptions of p-prims, How might alternative perspectives of cognitive structures influence instructional perceptions and intentions?, J. Learn. Sci. 5, 97 (1996).
  13. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2003).
  14. G. J. Posner et al., Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change, Sci. Educ. 66, 211 (1982).
  15. P. W. Hewson and M. G. Hennesy, in Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Bremen, Germany 1991, edited by R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, 1992), p. 176.
  16. P. W. Hewson and M. G. A. B. Hewson, The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction, Instr. Sci. 13, 1 (1984).
  17. S. Demastes, R. Good, and P. Peebles, Patterns of conceptual change in evolution, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 33, 407 (1996).
  18. P. R. L. Heron, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Course CLVI: Research on Physics Education, edited by E. F. Redish and M. Vicentini (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2003), p. 341.
  19. R. K. Thornton, in Thinking Physics for Teaching, edited by C. Tarsitani, C. Bernardini, and M. Vincentini (Plenum Publishing, London, 1996).
  20. R. K. Thornton, in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities, edited by E. F. Redish and J. Rigden, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 399 (AIP, Melville, NY, 1997).
  21. D. Dykstra, Why Teach Kinematics? Part I (unpublished), available at http://www.boisestate.edu/physics/dykstra/Dyks.html
  22. D. Dykstra, Why Teach Kinematics? Part II (unpublished), available at http://www.boisestate.edu/physics/dykstra/Dyks.html
  23. R. Duit, et al., Fostering Conceptual Change by Analogies—Between Scylla and Carybdis, Learn. Instr. 11, 283 (2001).
  24. E. F. Redish, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Course CLVI: Research on Physics Education, edited by E. F. Redish and M. Vicentini (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004), p. 1.
  25. M. C. Wittmann, The Object Coordination Class Applied to Wavepulses: Analysing Student Reasoning in Wave Physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 97 (2002).

  26. To go into more detail than will be given in this paper, the part-for-whole knowledge piece can be thought of as a vital relation describing elements of a blend. For more information, see Ref. [27]. This paper will not discuss blends further, though they allow for an excellent, deeper, more detailed description of the use of knowledge pieces in reasoning.

  27. G. Fauconnier and M. Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (Basic Books, New York, 2002).
  28. P. M. Sadler et al., A Private Universe: Misconceptions that block learning videorecording (Pyramid Film & Video, Santa Monica, CA, 1989).
  29. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962).
  30. K. A. Strike and G. J. Posner, in Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice, edited by R. A. Duschl and R. J. Hamilton (State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992), p. 147.
  31. S. Carey, Conceptual Change in Childhood (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985).
  32. S. Caravita, A re-framed conceptual change theory?, Learn. Instr. 11, 421 (2001).
  33. M. Limón, On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal, Learn. Instr. 11, 357 (2001).
  34. L. Mason, Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change, Learn. Instr. 11, 453 (2001).
  35. S. Vosniadou et al., Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science, Learn. Instr. 11, 381 (2001).
  36. D. Tirosh and P. Tsamir, What can mathematics education gain from the conceptual change approach? And what can the conceptual change approach gain from its application to mathematics education?, Learn. Instr. 14, 535 (2004).
  37. S. Vosniadou, Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching, Learn. Instr. 14, 445 (2004).
  38. W. Van Dooren et al., Remedying secondary school students’ illusion of linearity: a teaching experiment aiming at conceptual change, Learn. Instr. 14, 485 (2004).
  39. X. Vamvakoussi and S. Vosniadou, Understanding the structure of the set of rational numbers: a conceptual change approach, Learn. Instr. 14, 453 (2004).
  40. P. W. Hewson, http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/lala2/support/hewson.pdf
  41. T. C. Thaden-Koch, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska, 2003, available online at http://physics.unl.edu/~rpeg/TTKthesis/
  42. M. C. Wittmann, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1998 available at http://perlnet. umephy. maine.edu/research/dissertation/
  43. R. N. Steinberg, M. C. Wittmann, and E. F. Redish, in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 399 (AIP, Woodbury, NY, 1997), p. 1075.
  44. M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Making Sense of Students Making Sense of Mechanical Waves, Phys. Teach. 37, 15 (1999).
  45. M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Understanding and affecting student reasoning about the physics of sound, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 991 (2003).
  46. D. Tannen and C. Wallat, in The Discourse Reader, edited by A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (Routledge, New York, 1987), p. 346.
  47. E. Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Harper & Row, New York, 1974).
  48. G. MacLachlan and I. Reid, Framing and Interpretation (Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1994).
  49. D. Hammer et al., in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age, Greenwich, CT, 2004).
  50. J. P. Byrnes, Cognitive Development and Learning in Instructional Contexts (Pearson Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, 2000).
  51. E. C. Sayre, Master of Science in Teaching, University of Maine, 2005, available at http://perlnet.umaine.edu/research/SayreMSTthesis.pdf
  52. J. Clement, Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66 (1982).
  53. M. C. Wittmann and R. E. Scherr, in Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings 2002, edited by K. C. Cummings, S. Franklin, and J. Marx, available at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207077
  54. J. Tuminaro, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 2004, available at http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/dissertations/Tuminaro/
  55. C. v. Aufschnaiter and S. v. Aufschnaiter, Theoretical framework and empirical evidence of students’ cognitive processes in three dimensions of content, complexity, and time, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 616 (2003).
  56. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and The Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
  57. K. Wosilait, P. R. L. Heron, and L. C. McDermott, Development and assessment of a research-based tutorial on light and shadow, Am. J. Phys. 66, 906 (1998).
  58. I. Galili, S. Bendall, and F. M. Goldberg, The effects of prior knowledge and instruction on understanding image formation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 271 (1993).
  59. I. Galili and A. Hazan, Learners’ knowledge in optics: Interpretations, structure and analysis, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 57 (2000).
  60. F. M. Goldberg and L. C. McDermott, Student difficulties in understanding image formation by a plane mirror, Phys. Teach. 24, 472 (1986).
  61. B. L. Sherin, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1996.
  62. J. Piaget and B. Inhelder, The Child’s Conception of Space (W. W. Norton, New York, 1967).
  63. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
  64. F. Reif, Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes, Am. J. Phys. 63, 17 (1995).
  65. L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning, Refrigeration 2, 010103 (2006).
  66. L. Bao, K. Hogg, and D. Zollman, Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton’s third law, Am. J. Phys. 70, 766 (2002).
  67. R. E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and S. Vokos, The challenge of changing deeply held student beliefs about the relativity of simultaneity, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1238 (2002).
  68. R. E. Scherr, Am. J. Phys. (to be published), available at http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/scherr/ModStReasPost.pdf
  69. P. Tsamir and T. Dreyfus, Comparing infinite sets—a process of abstraction. The case of Ben, J. Math. Behav. 113, 1 (2002).
  70. E. Mazur, in Proceedings of the Conference on the Introductory Physics Course, edited by J. Wilson (Wiley, New York, 1997), p. 113.
  71. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
  72. M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Investigating student understanding of quantum physics: Spontaneous models of conductivity, Am. J. Phys. 70, 218 (2002).
  73. E. F. Redish, D. Hammer, and A. Elby, Learning How to Learn Science: Physics for Bioscience Majors (NSF grant REC008-7519, 2001–2003).
  74. R. A. Lawson and L. C. McDermott, Student understanding of the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems, Am. J. Phys. 55, 811 (1987).
  75. T. O’Brien Pride, S. Vokos, and L. C. McDermott, The challenge of matching learning assessments to teaching goals: An example from the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems, Am. J. Phys. 66, 147 (1998).
  76. A. Elby, What students’ learning about representations tells us about constructivism, J. Math. Behav. 19, 481 (2000).
  77. Z. Hrepic, D. Zollman, and N. S. Rebello, in Physics Education Research 2003, edited by J. Marx, S. Franklin, and K. Cummings, AIP Conf. Proc. (AIP, Melville, NY, 2004), p. 189.
  78. J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid, Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, Educ. Res. 18, 32 (1989).
  79. J. T. Morgan, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maine, 2006.
  80. M. C. Wittmann, unpublished web article, available at http://perlnet.umaine.edu/research/02RTPpaper.pdf
  81. P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, A research-based approach to improving student understanding of the vector nature of kinematical concepts, Am. J. Phys. 73, 921 (2005).
  82. L. Bao, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1999, available at http://physics.umd.edu/perg/dissertations/
  83. E. F. Redish, M. C. Wittmann, and R. N. Steinberg, Affecting Student Reasoning in the Context of Quantum Tunneling, Announcer 30, 100 (2000).
  84. M. C. Wittmann, unpublished web article, available at http://perlnet.umephy.maine.edu/research/2003VarennaCoord.pdf
  85. J. T. Morgan, M. C. Wittmann, and J. R. Thompson, in Physics Education Research 2003, edited by K. C. Cummings, S. Franklin, and J. Marx, AIP Conf. Proc. (AIP, Melville, NY, 2004).
  86. M. C. Wittmann, J. T. Morgan, and L. Bao, Addressing student models of energy loss in quantum tunneling, Eur. J. Phys. 26, 939 (2005).
  87. M. C. Wittmann and J. T. Morgan, in Physics Education Research 2003, edited by S. Franklin, K. C. Cummings, and J. Marx, AIP Conf. Proc. (AIP, Melville, NY, 2004).
  88. M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Introductory Physics, Vol. 1 of Activity-Based Tutorials (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2004).
  89. T. I. Smith and M. C. Wittmann, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. (to be published).
  90. M. C. Wittmann, Making Meaning: Emergent cognition in physics and physics education research, Announcer 32, 90 (2002).
  91. M. C. Wittmann, Using Learning Theories to Model Students’ Conceptual Changes, Announcer 34, 114 (2004).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020105– Published 29 August, 2006
  • Received 8 March 2006
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation

点击 这是indexloc提供的php浏览器服务，不要输入任何密码和下载