Referent change, a neglected aspect in traditional conceptual
change approaches to science learning and teaching
Introduction
It is a well documented fact that words imported from non-formal every day language and
used as defined terms in formal scientific language makes up a challenge in both teaching and
learning. The extensive research on learners’ conceptions of scientific concepts is a salient
exponent of that fact (cf. Duit, 2008). For instance, the foundational scientific terms force,
temperature, electric current, heat and energy are found to be difficult to attain among learners
both on elementary and advanced levels. Even science teachers in secondary schools have
shown deficiencies in their ability to define such terms (Galili & Lehavi, 2006).
In science educational research, learning scientific terms is generally treated as a process of
conceptual change. In the standard approach the learner is supposed to make a cognitive
transition from a pre-instructional conception of a natural object or phenomenon to the current
scientific concept (Duit, 2003). In Fig.1 this approach is illustrated by the conceptions and
concept of temperature.
{cc1, cc2, cc3, … ccn}
Conceptions of
TEMPERATURE
(”every-day
conception”)
Concept
TEMPERATURE
(“scientific
concept”)
Fig 1. The standard conceptual change approach. The set {cc1, cc2, cc3, … ccn } denotes
‘conceptual change’ – theories aiming at identifying the educational conditions for the
transition from a non-formal conception to the formal (scientific) concept.
However, starting from a semiotic/semantic perspective the word ‘TEMPERATURE’
expands a “sense-spectrum” (cf. Cruse, 1986, 71- 74), a space of meaning, simultaneously
including the common parlance meaning or, more correctly, a set of non-formal meanings
({NF}), TEMPERATUREFand the scientific meaning enclosing the current delimited
qualitative scientific phenomenon (SP), TEMPERATURESP, the physical quantity (PQ),
TEMPERATUREPQ and the operationalization meaning a measurement TEMPERATUREPQ,
empir. Additionally these senses could be analysed in the dimension of the semiotic properties
of symbol, concept and referent. See Fig. 2 for the complete two-dimensional analysis, 2DSAS (Strömdahl, submitted), making the properties of a term as TEMPERATURE explicit,
opening up for consecutive discernments of critical features in the meaning making processes
and thereby also revealing the conceptual complexity involved in the attainment of scientific
knowledge. For more details see Strömdahl (submitted).
Polysemy
C{NF}temp
C{NF}
rC1
CSP,temp
Temperature
R{NF}
rR1
RSP,temp
CPQ,temp
rC2
c
symbol
R{NF}temp
rR2
CPQ,X,empir
RPQ,X empir
concept
referent
Semiotic property
Fig 2. The two-dimensional analysing schema, 2D-SAS applied to Temperature. C and R
denote concept and referent respectively. rC1 and rC2 indicates relationships (r) between
concepts and rR1 and rR2 between referents. (from Strömdahl (submitted))
Aim
There is a spectrum of educational implications from the application of the 2-D-SAS
approach. However, here I will just briefly explicate the role of identifying the referent as a
base for conceptual modelling/change by discerning and comparing the referents of HEAT
and TEMPERATURE.
2
Analysis
InFig. 2 the non-formal TEMPERATURE{NF}, is differentiated in a set of non-formal
concepts C{NF}temp (generally denoted as misconceptions or alternative conceptions)
comprising ideas of warmth and cold and a set of corresponding referents R {NF}temp, bodily
experiences of events relating to these ideas. In a similar schema for HEAT{NF} we would find
C{NF}heat and R{NF}heat more or less overlapping the same concepts and referents as for
TEMPERATURE{NF}. This last statement is empirically proven by previous research
reporting on the mix-up between heat and temperature (see e.g. Tiberghien, 1983; Kesidou,
Duit & Glynn, 1995; Wiser & Amin, 2001; Duit, 2007). In non-formal situations this mix-up
of non-formal senses is no obstacle for proper every-day communication and actions. Similar
non-formal ideas have also been a starting-point for finding out the nature of warmth and cold
in the history of science. However, by painstaking efforts classical thermodynamics has ended
up in attaching the word TEMPERATURE to the property of every body that follows the
zeroth law of thermodynamics (in fig 2 denoted as the concept CSPtemp): ‘If two bodies are
each in thermal equilibrium with a third body, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each
other’. If the third body is a thermometer its readings will have physical significance. The
bodies with these properties are the referent RSPtemp of the concept CSPtemp. From a more
general phenomenological point of view, within kinetic gas theory, CSPtemp can be looked
upon as the “intensity of the motion” (mean translational energy) among the molecular/atomic
particles. Thus, the referent RSPtemp is a special aspect of molecules and atoms and their
motion. In this paper I leave out the more theoretical and statistical mechanical interpretations
that is possible.
The quantitative aspect of temperature is expressed by CPQtemp which is a base physical
quantity belonging to the coherent system of physical quantities within the International
system of physical quantities and units, SI, and the mathematics of quantity calculus. It is
operationalized by the definition of a unit (1 K) for temperature, the empirical quantification
of measurement CPQempir temp connected to the referent of readings of a measuring device
RPQempir temp, here thermometers.
Heat, on the other hand is in science referring to the process of energy transfer between two
bodies of different temperature, referent RSPheat. It is another aspect of atomic/molecular
motion than temperature. The physical quantity CPQheat and its quantification CPQempir heat (SI
unit 1J) has the same dimension as energy and is connected to the referent RPQempir heat, the
operational measuring by e.g. a calorimeter.
If we are just looking at the problem of separating the senses of the scientific terms heat and
temperature there is no possibility to remain within the sets of non-formal referents R{NF}temp
and R{NF}heat. From the 2-D-SAS analysis it is conclusive that to learn the scientific concepts
heat and temperature is it to explicitly identify the correct referents since they are the base for
the conceptual modelling. Conceptual change is not possible if the referent of the target
concept is not the correct one. To make these statements more tangible an excerpt of 2-D-SAS
schemas, where only the referents of heat and temperature are displayed, we can see the
impossibility to build on the empirical found referents in the non-formal approach since they
are mainly based on bodily experiences of thermal character and are overlapping. The formal
senses of the scientific concepts of heat and temperature must build on the formal referents.
Thus they have to be identified as necessary conditions in the process of conceptual
attainment. In traditional conceptual change this referent change is not made explicit.
3
R{NF}temp
C{NF}
rR1
RSP,temp
rR2
RPQ,temp,empir
R{NF}heat
R{NF}
rR1
RSP,heat
rR2
RPQ,heat empir
Fig 3. The referents of the scientific terms of heat and temperature, to be separated from
non-formal referents and each other as a base for the process of concept modelling.
Conclusion and discussion
Most research on students’ conceptions (“alternative conceptions or misconceptions”) and
teaching and learning science concepts is framed by different conceptual change theories. The
present investigation starts from semiotic/semantic perspective by introducing the 2-D-SAS
approach expanding a space of meaning, a ‘sense-spectrum’ of a term connected to the term´s
semiotic properties as symbol, concept and referent. In this paper the focus is on the
importance of identifying the referent as the base for modelling the concept. This is illustrated
by eliciting the well known learning difficulties of attaining the scientific terms of heat and
temperature. The educational value of the 2-D-SAS approach analysis is to stress the
polysemy, the space of meaning, the ‘sense-spectrum’ of terms in a way that makes it possible
to discern the critical features identifying the intended learning object, here exemplified by
the scientific referents of TEMPERATURE and HEAT. Subsequently, in learning the
scientific meaning of terms the demand put on the learner and the teacher is to discern these
categories of semantic distinct meaning and referents of the one and the same polysemeous
word and to disambiguate the term according to context.
The approach is applicable to any term to sort out its scientific significance and its category
membership. Compared to the common conceptual change research in science education on
attainment of scientific terms, the 2-D-SAS approach adds among other things the neglected
explicit aspect of referent change.
4
References
Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duit, R. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching
and learing. International Journal of Science Education 25, 6 671- 688.
Duit, R. (2008). Bibliography STCSE, Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science
education.http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html (January, 2008).
Galili, I., & Lehavi, Y. (2006). Definitions of Physical Concepts: A study of Physic teachers’
knowledge and views. International Journal of Science Education 28, 5, 521-541.
Kesidou, S., Duit, R. and Glynn, S. M. (1995) Conceptual development in physics: Students’
understanding of heat. In S. M. Glynn and R. Duit (eds), Learning science in the schools:
research reforming practice (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum).
Strömdahl, H. (submitted to an international journal). The challenge of polysemy: On
discerning critical elements, relationships and shifts in attaining scientific terms.
Tiberghien, A., (1983) Critical review on the research aimed at elucidating the sense that the
notions of temperature and heat have for students aged 10 to 16 years. In G. Delacôte, A.
Tiberghien and J. Schwartz (eds), Research on physics education, proceedings of the first
international workshop, La Londe Les Maures, France (Paris: ´ Editions du CNRS), pp.
75–90.
Wiser, M., & Amin, T. (2001). “Is heat hot?” Inducing conceptual change by integrating
everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11, 45, 331-355
5