Current Event #2: Constructivism
Lee 1/6
Miha Lee
Professor Rivas
SED 600
18 April 2007
Conceptual change using multiple interpretive perspectives:
Two case studies in secondary school chemistry
By Allan G. Harrison & David F. Treagust
From Instructional Science vol.29: 45–85, 2001.
Harrison and Treagust (2001) conducted a case study of two students as
they learned chemistry taught by the first author in an Australian high school.
Alex and Dan were followed throughout the whole academic year (36weeks) and
were observed and interviewed for their understanding of atomic structures.
Finally, the researchers concluded that the understanding the conceptual change
requires multiple approaches toward the interpretation of learning, involving
“social and motivational factors, ontological issues, modeling ability, intellectual
development”(p.45).
This study attempted to explore alternative explanations for why given
the same learning environment why some students learn but others do not. To
answer the interesting question, two students were chosen with an explicit
purpose of supporting their assertion that students’ scores on standard tests and
examinations are unreliable indicators of conceptual understanding. In this sense,
the participants, Alex and Dan, were chosen because they were apparently
similar in terms of the achievement on the tests, but very different in light of the
Current Event #2: Constructivism
Lee 2/6
quality of understanding. This is a purposeful sampling for in-depth case study.
Purposeful sampling is the dominant strategy in qualitative research. Purposeful
sampling seeks information-rich cases that can be studied in depth (Hoepfl,
1997). When the researcher introduced the participants, I could tell the intention
of this study; they questioned the scores on the tests as an indicator of learning
and understanding.
However, the question to be asked is how the researchers knew these
students developed very different quality of conceptual understanding prior to
conducting the research. The answer to this question was that this was the
follow-up study after the first author’ doctoral dissertation. They used the same
data in order to answer the different research question. As a result, there are
some flaws in this study that need to be addressed before the reader can fully
accept the validity of the conclusions.
The researchers insisted that the social and motivational factors were the
main influence that caused the difference in the conceptual development of two
students. However, there was no supportive evidence such as quotations from
the interviews. They just described the personality and background in the
student profile. In addition, one student, Dan, was from Singapore and he moved
to Australia at the beginning of this research. They explained that his prior
educational curriculum in science was suitable prerequisites for the Western
Australian chemistry course, but I think his different cultural background could
affect his learning process, and thus his conceptual development.
Despite any perceived flaws in this study, the topic and interpretation of
conceptual change were very interesting and useful to me. The target concept of
Current Event #2: Constructivism
Lee 3/6
this research was the atomic structure that is invisible and thus has many
diverse forms of models depending on the purpose of the scientists. In fact,
understanding of the nature of various atomic models, including ball and stick,
electron shells, and electron clouds, is the fundamental goal of teaching and
learning chemistry. Accordingly, the first author taught chemistry in a traditional
way except that every metaphor, analogy and model was discussed in detail with
the students; the researchers monitored the understanding and use of the
analogical models of atoms and molecules.
To determine the depth of the conceptual changes from prior knowledge
to desired knowledge, the researchers employed three tools with regard to
epistemology: conceptual status, modeling level, and intellectual ability. I
summarized and compared three epistemological tools in the following table. To
confirm the status of concept, the other tools are used. Because modeling levels
are derived from the way students describe, explain and use models, the levels
provide information about conceptual status, and thus modeling level changes
may provide useful evidence for conceptual change. Conceptual status, modeling
level and intellectual ability seem to be interrelated to allow their use as
‘triangulation of measures for conceptual change’. There may be other way to
evaluate and interpret the conceptual change, but these three ways are sufficient
enough to show the complexity and difficulty of assessing conceptual
understanding. This multiple epistemological approach to measure the depth of
conceptual understanding informed me how to assess student’s learning.
Current Event #2: Constructivism
Conceptual status
Intelligible:
A
Lee 4/6
Modeling level
new
Intellectual ability
Dualism
Level 1: Students who
Students
in
conception is sensible and
believe that there is a 1:1
categorize
understood by a student.
correspondence between
right-or-wrong, defer to the
Conceptual capture
models and reality, that is
teacher
Assimilation of new concept
models are small incomplete
correct answer, expect to be
copies of actual objects.
told
knowledge
who
what
memorize
knows
is
and
right,
as
the
and
regurgitate
knowledge.
Plausible:
that
plausible
in
addition
means
to
Level 2: Students who
Students
the believe that models remain
who
Multiplism
advance
accept
to
and
student knowing what the real world entities rather
rationalize
conception
than representations of
representations by believing
ideas, and a model’s main
that everyone is entitled to
purpose is communication
his/her opinion. They believe
rather than idea exploration.
that every opinion is equally
finds
means,
the
he/she
conception
believable.
valid
and
diverse
context-bound
reasonings are just special
cases.
Level
fruitful if it helps the learner
satisfied level 3 criteria that
students must comprehend
solve
or
models should be multiple;
that knowledge is relative
research
are thinking tools; and can
and contextually bound.
other
suggests
problems
new
3:
Experts
manipulated
alone
directions.
be
Conceptual exchange
modeler
Accommodation
epistemological needs.
to
suit
by
To
reach
Relativism,
Fruitful: the conception is
the
his/her
The unique feature of this paper is the way the data was provided and
analyzed in the paper. First, every change in the concept of atom was described
by the time progress with the evidences from the pre and posttests. Because the
teaching was model-based, the students’ concepts were also measured by
drawing and selecting diagrams that represented the concept of atom’s electron
Current Event #2: Constructivism
Lee 5/6
shells and electron clouds. Those drawings the students made, quotes the
students said, and analysis with pedagogical implications at length helped me
follow the progress the students made, and made the researchers’ claims
reliable.
According to this paper, one student pursued deep understanding of
concepts and their interrelationships, but the other just sought “the accumulation
and reiteration of information in a systematic way” (p.76). The author attributed
this result to the social-affective learning factor by interpreting that “for Alex
and Dan, different motivational influences seemed to mediate their conceptual
development” (p.78). But as I mentioned earlier, this assertion was given without
any supporting evidence.
Due to sufficient evidence and detailed interpretation, I was convinced
that the qualities of conceptual change of two students were quite different. On
the contrary, the research seemed to fail to answer the research question: what
caused the difference in the quality of student understanding in the same
learning environment? If the students’ scores on the tests were not reliable
indicator of learning, we should question the validity of the test, not the
motivation of learning. Just because a student has high motivation on grade does
not mean he/she can get a high score on the test. However, this study suggested
that we use multiple interpretive perspectives in order to measure and
understand the conceptual change. Like this research, teachers need information
collected
from
independent
perspectives
by
using
qualitative
ways
of
assessment.
The researchers specifically commented that in the study, a constructivist
Current Event #2: Constructivism
Lee 6/6
methodology was purposely chosen for the study’s design, data collection and
interpretation, and case study writing. They insisted that qualitative aspect of
constructivist researches ask for different criteria, replacing reliability by
dependability, and objectivity by conformability because each class present a
different social and intellectual mix in a new time and place and the teacher’s
knowledge evolves as his/her experience grows. In deed, earlier constructivists
were interested in the conceptual change only at a level of epistemology, but
recent social constructivists are making shifts from individual cognitive structure
to various factors that affect conceptual understanding. Thus, constructivists
carry out researches with qualitative methods rather than quantitative methods
to measure the depth of understanding and identify the factors that affect
student learning. In this sense, this case study was a representative example of
constructivists’ qualitative researches even though they failed to provide
supporting evidence. Also, this study suggested that further investigations are
needed to identify the social and affectional factors that mediate student’s
learning process.
Reference
Hoepfl, M. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology
education researchers, Journal of technology education, 9(1), 47-63
Harrison. A. G. & Treagust. D. F., (2001), Conceptual change using multiple
interpretive perspectives: Two case studies in secondary school chemistry,
Instructional Science, 29, 45–85