Current Event: Constructivism
CURRENT EVENT: CONSTRUCTIVISM
Evaluation of a Constructivism Research Article
Encouraging conceptual change: the use of bridging analogies
John C. Olson
California State University, Northridge
1
Current Event: Constructivism
2
Abstract
The qualitative study critiqued in this paper addressed the use of bridging analogies in a
constructivist framework to see if the use of analogies would help the subjects in the study
come to their own correct conclusions regarding the ‘at rest’ condition of Newton’s third
law. The study group was made up of twenty one 15 year old students. Each student was
questioned during an interview as the student studied graphic analogies. The objective was
to see if the questioning would lead the students to correctly identify the forces working in
Newton’s third law. The paper summarizes the content of the study in terms of design and
methodology. The strengths and weaknesses of the study are addressed, covering the
topics of study group size, the interview schedule, and data coding. The paper also
discusses ideas from the study that have applications for our own action research project.
Current Event: Constructivism
3
Evaluation of a Constructivism Research Article
Encouraging conceptual change: the use of bridging analogies
Summary of the study
This project was designed to study the “effectiveness of bridging analogies intended
to bring about conceptual change” (Bryce & MacMillan, 2005, p.737). The goal was to
discover if using these analogies “as part of a constructivist approach,” (2005, p.737) would
help students synthesize their own correct understanding of the action-reaction force and the
at rest condition. The study used open-ended coding, incorporating the “categories of
fruitfulness, intelligibility and plausibility” (Bryce & MacMillan, 2005, p.742) taken from
previous research studies. These categories were deemed to be “of fundamental importance
in the search for evidence of conceptual change” (2005, p.742).
During the study, researchers showed a series of analogies to the participants during
“semi-structured ‘think-aloud’ interviews” (Bryce & MacMillan, 2005, p.742). The
interviews were conducted with 21 volunteers. These volunteers were third-year secondary
physics students from one school. With a few carefully chosen questions, the researchers
first attempted to draw out the preconceptions the subjects had of the action-reaction force,
then to guide them through a series of analogies which were intended to help the subjects
come to their own correct conclusions and beliefs about what forces are actually at work
(Bryce & MacMillan, 2005).
Strengths
The interview schedule
The design of the interview schedule was carefully reviewed before the study was
started. The researchers stated that “An initial interview schedule was devised and then
piloted. The piloting process involved formally recording, transcribing and analyzing
Current Event: Constructivism
4
interviews with two students, as well as more informal trials with five other students (from
the same age group)” (Bryce & MacMillan, 2005, p.743). Once the transcripts of these
interviews had been recorded and studied, the researchers made adjustments to the original
schedule. Their findings “resulted in a number of alterations…which made the questions
more open and improved the way the students were guided through the process” (2005,
p.743). The careful design and modification of their methodology gave this study a great
deal of credibility. They were very careful to make sure that they did not tell students the
answer “at any stage in the process” (2005, p.743). The whole purpose of the study was to
see if the students by using the analogies given could “construct the law for themselves and
propose a cause which seemed plausible” (2005, p.743).
Data Coding
The data coding for this study was very systematic. The authors stated that
“Evidence of the analogies making the existence and the cause of the reaction force from
the table more intelligible and plausible was looked for” (Bryce & MacMillan, 2005,
p.746). The interviews were transcribed and then were analyzed using methods from
previously researcher. In the transcripts, “an individuals responses were coded and
recorded in order to allow the tracking of individual students’ thinking to be carried out as
the analogies were worked through” (Bryce & MacMillan, 2005, p.746). The coding was
designed specifically to look for “categories of pre-conceptions; evidence of conceptual
change at each of the four analogical stages; evidence of students demonstrating a cyclical
thought process,…” and “…categories of responses to the alternative scenarios” (2005,
p.746).
Current Event: Constructivism
5
Study group
The researchers were careful to balance the subjects within their study group. The
fact that “the sample size matched the numbers used in the study conducted by Brown”
(Bryce & MacMillan, 2005, p.742), one of the studies they based their research on, added
to the credibility of their work, because they were using a previous study’s techniques in
the design of their own study. Subgroups identified in the study included: “Group 1:
previously taught Newton’s Third Law,” (2005, p.746), “Group 2: previously taught about
forces only,” (2005, p.748), and “Group 3: No prior teaching” (2005, p.750). The quality
of work in identifying and balancing the study group, as well as the methods used to
compare the results, demonstrated a high level of professionalism in the design and
implementation of this study.
Weaknesses
Study group
The size of the study group does not lend itself to make any strong, valid claims.
The researchers conceded that “on numerical terms it has not provided conclusive evidence
that analogical methods are better at causing conceptual change than more conventional
teaching methods” (Bryce & MacMillan, 2005, p.761). It would be beneficial to see this
same study applied on a larger sampling of students.
Interviews
Although the design of the study was very careful not to give students answers,
(Bryce & MacMillan, 2005), the transcripts of the interviews do indicate a substantial
amount of questioning by the interviewers, which may have unintentionally lead the
students in the direction the interviewer wanted them to go. Although the line of
questioning seemed to avoid directing students, questions such as “so are you saying there
Current Event: Constructivism
6
is a force bouncing down and a bouncing up, or are you saying that it is bending on the
table?” (Bryce & MacMillan, 2005, p.757) could lead the subject to reconsider their
response in terms of what they might think the interviewer is looking for.
Applications
The use of an interview process to solicit the thought processes of the students
involved may be something I will want to consider in my project. I am definitely interested
in mining and coding transcripts to see how students interact with each other in discussing
and solving the assignments they will be doing in my study, and I may want to include
some one-on-one interviews to see what the students are really getting from the materials I
will be creating.
I also found the process of refining the study with a pilot program of value, and I
know I will want to make revisions of my own work based on how the students respond to
it. It is evident that it is important to carefully consider the size of the study group when
looking at what it is you actually are trying to study and discover. This study also clarifies
that one needs to determine the number of classes and students to include in the study to
give a balance between useful information and manageable data.
Current Event: Constructivism
References
Bryce, T., & MacMillan, K. (2005). Encouraging conceptual change: The use of bridging
analogies in the teaching of action-reaction forces and the "at rest" condition in
physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 737-763. Retrieved
April 14, 2007, from ERIC database.
7