Conceptual Change Through Processual Change
Dr. A. Wasmann-Frahm, Dorfstr. 7, 25436 Groß Nordende;
Astrid.Frahm@web.de
Poster presented at the European Conference on Educational Research,
University of Goteborg, 10-12 September 2008
Abstract
Classification serves as a tool for conceptualizing the vertebrate concepts. A training
of the method enhances the classification skills as well as class concepts of
vertebrates. The introduction to the method is based on the ‘hybrid-model’ of
comparison. This method comprises two independently working processes, the
associative and the theory-based process. The development of classification skills
initiates pupils to construct their own vertebrate concepts. Another important element
in this approach is the insertion of the natural history of the vertebrates. The change
from similarity-based classification to theory-based classification promotes the
conceptual change of vertebrate concepts.
This study investigates in three fifth grade classes the effectiveness of classification
training. It examines in which way the classification skills influence the construction of
vertebrate concepts. An associative test was developped to obtain results about the
working of the two classification processes in the classroom. The results confirm that
pupils changed from similarity- to theory-based classification and that a conceptual
change of vertebrate concepts took place.
Introduction
Building up the concepts of vertebrates represents a well known learning difficulty
since the pupils come with preconcepts (Hammann & Bayrhuber, 2001; Kattmann &
Schmitt, 1996; Ryman, 1974).
Psychologists consider the term of classification as being an important aspect of the
cognitive process because pupils aquire the ability of constructing concepts that are
integrated and memorised in the semantic memory. Learners build a network of
mental representations. These concepts are important elements of knowledge.
The common suggestions penguins, whales, seals were fish reveal a classification
attributed to the habitat and locomotion criteria. Such misconceptions are the basic
concepts children first learn. They stay for long and are resistant to change (Duit,
2000; Lakoff, 2003; Ryman, 1974). So, even fifteen year old students stick to this
kind of everyday classification.
Table 1 Classification of ‚untypical‘ vertebrates by fifteen years old pupils (n= 167); own
investigations in 2004
Everyday Classification as Fish
Species
beaver
seal
penguin
newt
dolphin
Concept of Fish
14 %
28 %
29 %
31 %
43 %
1
eel
91 %
Theory
The cognitive process of classification is considered as a construct of two parts, the
associative part and the rule-based part (Hampton, 1998; Keil, Smith, Simons, &
Levin, 1998; Lakoff, 2003; Rips, 1989; Sloman & Rips, 1998; Smith & Sloman, 1994)
We call this the ‘hybrid model’.
The associative part matches with many attributes of two or more objects or of a
category and an object to be classified spontaneously. This kind of classification is
common in everyday operations. The evaluation of similarity between objects
changes depending on the situation. Similarity works best when there are clear
categorial features. The use of similarity-based classification may provoke
fundamental errors in living objects. If the classification basis on the perceptual
feature ‘streamline’ a penguin as well as a whale is grouped to the class of fish.
The explanatory part represents the rule-based process. Rules can be very
different, for example logical, normative or describing. They are not compatible with
the associative part and work independently from similarity. Rules determine the
context of similarity and select the similarities that are demanded. This part works in
domains of weak perceptive similarity or when the properties of objects fall between
two categories. Rule-based classification is an alternative in cases without
perceptible similarity. Both parts are active during a classification process and
interact. The rule-based inference and selection process takes more time.
Hybrid Model and Classification of a Penguin
Associative Part
• wings
• fins
• in water
• eating fish
• singing
• swimming
• flying
• two legs
• laying eggs
• feathers
• bill
Interaction
selection
evaluation
Explanatory Part
database about criteria of the classes
.........................................
• knowledge about the change of
attributes
• knowledge about homology and
analogy
• natural history of the
vertebrates
• adaptation – living space
Figure 1: Classification of the penguin as a two part procedure, after the conception of Rips,
Sloman, Keil et al. (Keil et al., 1998; Rips, 1989; Sloman & Rips, 1998; Smith & Sloman, 1994)
Untypical specimens with few perceptual resemblances with their phylum cannot be
classified on the basis of perceptual similarities. The more untypical a living organism
is according to its class, the more necessary is a theory-orientated classification
recurring to the explanatory part of the classification process. This is the case for
whales, snakes, bats and penguins. Classification of the penguin for example cannot
2
recur to the typical but non-defining attribute ‘flying’, instead inference processes
about defining attributes operated by the explanatory part are necessary.
Scientific Question
This study persued the question whether an enhancement of the method of
classification combined with natural history information fosters the change of
conceptions.
Hypothesis 1
An improvement of the method of classification leads to a better conceptualisation of
vertebrates.
Hypothesis 2
A change in the classification process fosters a conceptual change.
Design of the Study
An interventional treatment with three fifth grade classes (two experimental and one
control group, n = 76) was performed. The first experimental group improved
classification skills and was taught about the natural history of vertebrates, the
second experimental group improved its classification skills while the third class as
control group obtained traditional lessons without an explicit classification training
and without natural history aspects.
Table 2 Grouping of the Treatment Sample
Subgroups
Sample
Classification Training
Experimental group I
Experimental group II
Control group
n = 26
n = 26
n = 24
+
+
-
Natural History of
Vertebrates
+
-
Treatment
The introduction into the method of classification represented the main part of a
teaching sequence about vertebrates for experimental groups I and II. Animal cards
served as the main teaching material. Pupils used them to classify species to
vertebrate classes and to represent the variability of species in one vetrebrate class.
There were about 50 different animal cards to be analysed. One side of the card
showed a picture and the name of the animal, the other side described its
characteristics. Pupils looked for the relevant properties to classify the animals
valuating and selecting the given information. The student groups designed a poster
for one out of the five vertebrate classes and presented it in front of the class
(Wasmann-Frahm, 2006a, , 2006b).
Method and Testing Material
3
A pre-, post- and follow-up test design was established and statistically evaluated. A
two part classification test was developped to obtain results on the use of similarity
and theory as well as on animal conceptions. The test consisted of three animal
cards with a prototype organism, the stork, and two cards with untypical animals such
as the whale and the penguin. The animal cards were identical for the pre- and post
test. Six months later the test procedure was repeated, with other species, however,
shown on the cards - a sea-lion, a stingray, and an orca. This was necessary to avoid
learning and fatigue effects.
First, the pupils noted their associative ideas when contemplating the animal picture.
Second, they had to classify the animals. The classification immediately after
notifying associations stimulates the automatically working part of the classification
process, the so-called similarity-based classification.
Dolphin
Note your first ideas when you see this animal.
Group the dolphin into a vertebrate class.
Do you know this animal?
□ yes
□ no
fish
amphibian
reptile
bird
mammal
Figure 2 Picture card, first classification
The time was limited to 4 minutes. At the end of 4 minutes the picture cards were
collected.
Dolphin / Tursiops tuncatus
Dolphin
Dolphins are very intelligent. They can
communicate very well. They even
recognize how humans feel.
The form of their body is well adapted to
live in water. They have to come up to the
water surface for respiration. Dolphins are
viviparous animals and bring forth young
ones. At birth the dam helps its calf to the
surface to get its first breath.
They feed on sea animals like squid. Their
skin is smooth and slimy. Their forelimbs
are used as flippers.
These dolphins are very sociable and they
live in groups.
Group the dolphin into a vertebrate class.
fish amphibian reptile bird mammal
Give reasons for your classification
(catchwords)
__________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Figure 3 Information card, second classification
4
The second card comprised textual information about the same animal. The pupils of
the sample group had the task to classify the animals once again. This time they
were asked to give arguments for their choice and they got as much time as they
required. This classification card was supposed to reveal information on the theorybased classification.
Results –Pre-test
Associations
The associations noted by the pupils were grouped into seven different categories.
Most of their associations were attributed to locomotion. Aspects attributed to habitat
were often mentioned as well. These results coincide with former investigations
(Kattmann & Schmitt, 1996) and underline the dominance of locomotion and habitat
aspects.
Table 3 Categories of Associations and Percentages; Pretest; n=76
Association fields
surface
properties
locomotion
habitat
nutrition
relationship to humans
Stork
Penguin
Dolphin
3.9%
10.4%
18.2%
23,4%
34.2%
29.9%
42.9%
28.9%
39.0%
26.0%
18.4%
7,8%%
3.9%
3,9%
1.3%
1%
1.3%
1.3%
Classification
Table 3 indicates very little difference between the first and second classification. The
data clearly show that everyday classification based on the associative part
dominates at this stage. Pupils are not able to take advantage of the information
without having any theoretical knowledge about vertebrates and without any
classification competences. Those pupils who so far have not understood the
classification system containing inclusions indicated two vertebrate classes for one
species.
The errors reveal the difficulties children have when classifying untypical animals.
Less than half of the testified sample group classified penguins as birds. These
findings suggest the only use of the spontaneous associative part of the classification
process.
Table 4 1. Classifcation of the Penguin 1.classification(picture) and 2. classification
(information); Pretest; n=76
2 animal classes
1. Classification
5.3%
2. Classification
2.6%
5
fish
amphibian
reptile
bird
mammal
10.7%
11.7%
1.3%
2,6%
2.7%
1.3%
44.0%
45.5%
36.0%
36.4%
The classification arguments show criteria pupils used for classifying vertebrates. The
arguments were grouped into eight categories: four of them based on perceptual
similarity and three categories consisting of a correct biological argumentation.
Nonsense answers, no answers and circle arguments such as ‘because I know it’
were integrated within the first category of ‘no arguments’. The four everyday
arguments are related to locomotion, habitat, nutrition, and perceptual similarity. The
taxonomic arguments are divided into a superordinated argument (‘they have lungs’),
an argumentation with one correct argument and with two or more correct arguments.
percentage
-
10
20
30
40
50
no arguments
movement
nutrition
habitat
similarity
superordinated argument
1 argument, class related
2 arguments or more
Figure 4 Arguments for the classification of the penguin, pre-test, n= 76, white bars: everyday
arguments; dark bars: taxonomic arguments
The data revealed that the largest part of the sample group was not able to argue,
the next highest part of the sample group referred its answer to locomotion, followed
by nutrition, habitat, and perceptual similarity. The use of taxonimically valuable
arguments played a subordinated role.
Locomotion takes the first place in spontaneous associations and in criteria for
classification. These findings lead to the conclusion that only the associative part of
the classification process is activated. These arguments coincide closely with
6
spontaneous associations. The high amount of false or no argumentation underlines
that classification at this time is no solid tool to construct concepts.
Results – Post-test
In the post-test pupils out of the experimental group I and II showed a different
behaviour on the occasion of the first and the second classification. This experience
leads to the conclusion that they are now able to rely on the explanatory part of
classification, if necessary. The mean scores in figure 5 show this improvement from
the first to the second classification. The classification abilities of the control group
are considerably behind the other two random groups. After having used the
information the experimental group I and control group differed significantly (mean
score: .9 to .55). The control group showed no improvement of classifying
vertebrates. These pupils remain in everyday grouping habits.
Those who corrected their own classification found the adequate information in the
text for classifying vertebrates. The selection of arguments was based on theoretical
knowledge of the explanatory part. The next graph illustrates this improvement.
First and second classification - dolphin
0,9
0,8
0,7
mean
0,6
1. classification
2. classification
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
Exp. I
Exp. II
control
Figure 5 1. Classification (picture) und 2. Classification of the dolphin (information); white
pillar: 1. classification; rayed pillar: 2. classification; post-test
The arguments of classification, too, indicate the improvement of competences in
classification. They demonstrate that the experimental groups have gained much
more skills in taxonimic classification. The next figure illustrates that the control group
argues further on everyday reasons. They give locomotion orientated answers (25%)
in the first place, habitat arguments (20%) in second place while the taxonomic
arguments do not increase. Their understanding of classification did not change.
Their classification process relied on similarity-based comparision. They did not
change their behaviour during the process.
7
percent
0
10
20
30
40
50
no arguments
locomotion
nutrition
habitat
similarity
superordinated argument
1 argument, related to the class
2 or more arguments
Figure 6 Arguments for the classification of the dolphin, post test, control group n=24; white
bars: everyday arguments; dark bars: biologically correct arguments
percent
0
10
20
30
40
50
no arguments
locomotion
nutrition
habitat
similarity
superordinated argument
1 argument, related to the class
2 or more arguments
Figure 7 Arguments for the classification of the dolphin, post test, experimental group I, n=26;
white bars: everyday arguments; dark bars: biologically correct arguments
While a quarter of the control group based its classification on locomotion, this
argument disappeared in the experimental group I. The class obtaining method
training and natural history learning was able to shift from everyday criteria to
taxonomically relevant criteria. These criteria consist of homologies such as skin,
skeleton, reproduction system, lungs, and circulation. The control group, however,
8
could not rely on both parts of the classification process. This is the reason why they
did not build appropriate biological concepts. Their difficulties affect the correct
classification as well. Only 50% of the control sample group classified the dolphin as
mammal while there were 88.5% in the experimental group I who classified this
animal correctly.
The analysis of the data suggest a shift from similarity-based classification to the use
of the explanatory part that improves the classification abilities and the formation of
correct concepts as well. In the experimental group II (classification training without
natural history knowledge) 76% of the sample group classified the dolphin correctly to
the class of mammals. The sums of everyday arguments are higher than those of the
experimental I group. 14% argued with habitat and 4.8% still relied on similarity. The
locomotion argument disappeared as well. The improvements of this group reached
almost the progression of the experimental group I. The difference between the
experimental groups I and II may be explained by the more theory-orientated
classification in group I. It can be deducted from this observation that the natural
history knowledge supports the selection of features. No one in group I returned to
similarity-based nor to locomotion nor to habitat orientation. These results were found
for all three animal cards.
The experimental I sample group showed a solid quality of classification since these
pupils argued consequently with more than 80% of biologically correct reasoning.
Consequently these data allow to deduct that the combination of classification
training and theory was successful. Sticking to similarity-based classification of the
control group means sticking to everyday classification patterns. This leads to a lack
of biologically based vertebrate concepts. A t-test (paired samples between pre- and
post-test) revealed significant differences between the three groups (two-sided, on
.01 level for mean scores). Another t-test proved that only the experimental I sample
group showed a significant shift from the pre- to the post-test by using taxonomic
criteria (two-sided, on .05 level). This result underlines that a shift from similaritybased to theory-based classification is due to process-orientated learning. It supports
the result that this method offers a way to improve the individual construction of
vertebrate concepts.
Results – Follow-Up Test
The following table shows the classification behaviour after six months, referring to
the stingray.
Table 5 Arguments for a classification of the stingray, follow up-test, all three sample groups
Arguments
no arguments
locomotion
nutrition
habitat
similarity
superordinated
argument
1 argument, related to
the class
2 or more arguments
Control Group Experimental Group II Experimental Group I
(n=20)
(n=20)
(n=23)
35%
0%
0%
5%
0%
4.3%
5%
0%
4.3%
15%
15%
17.3%
10%
0%
0%
25%
15%
26.1%
5%
0%
30%
40%
21.7%
26.1%
9
The experimental groups continued basing their arguments on taxonomic criteria.
These pupils have left behind them similarity-based classification. The experimental II
group, for example, used up to 85% biological arguments for their classification. They
obviously inserted the new sight of classification to their previous concepts and built
up reliable vertebrate class concepts. A high percentage of the control group,
however, did not find any argument for their classification (35%). And another 35% of
those sticked to everyday arguments.
Table 6 Correct classification of the dolphin and orca, pre-, post- and follow up test; all three
groups
sample
control
experimental II
experimental I
Pre-test
dolphin
32%
57.7%
61.6%
Post-test
dolphin
54.2%
76.2%
88.5%
Follow-up Test
Orca
65%
100%
95.7%
The table showing the correct classification of dolphin and orca underlines the
findings about long-term learning. While almost each of the experimental groups was
able to classify an untypical vertebrate, 65% only of the control group classified it
correctly. Both the experimental groups could significantly enhance their ability of
classification (t-test, paired samples, significant at .05 level). It can be concluded that
method training and close connecting of method and content improve
conceptualisation of vertebrate concepts and anchor them deeper in the mental
representation where they stay for long.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates that the improvement of classification skills in the theorybased process enables children to classify more independently from perceptual
similarity. A shift from analogy-based criteria to homology-oriented criteria has taken
place. In this sense, the experimental groups have accomplished a change of
comparision process. The teaching and learning of classification skills promotes the
shift in direction of theory-based classification. A theory-based part filled with
theoretical knowledge like natural history of vertebrates and change of species
improves the conceptualisation of vertebrates.
Acquiring more competences in classification pupils are able to enlarge or
reconstruct actively vertebrate concepts. Hence, the conceptual change of vertebrate
concepts is possible.
This investigation shows also that self constructed enlargements of animal concepts
or reconstructions are deeply anchored in the mental representation system and stay
there for long.
References
Duit, R. (2000). Konzeptwechsel und Lernen in den Naturwissenschaften in einem
mehrperspektivischen Ansatz. In R. Duit, von Rhöneck, C. (Ed.), Ergebnisse
10
fachdidaktischer und psychologischer Lehr-Lern-Forschung (Vol. 169, pp. 77-103).
Kiel: IPN.
Hammann, M., & Bayrhuber, H. (2001). Biodiversity and the comparative method: A
teaching intervention at age 11-12. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the III.
Conference of European Researchers in Didactic of Biology (ERIDOB), Santiago de
Compostela.
Hampton, J. A. (1998). Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories.
Cognition, 65, 137-165.
Kattmann, U., & Schmitt, A. (1996). Elementares Ordnen: Wie Schüler Tiere klassifizieren.
Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 2(2), 21-38.
Keil, F. C., Smith, W. C., Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1998). Two dogmas of conceptual
empiricism: Implications for hybrid models of the structure of knowledge. Cognition,
65, 103-135.
Lakoff, G. J., M. (2003). Leben in Metaphern (A. Hildenbrand, Trans.). Heidelberg: CarlAuer-Systeme Verlag.
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. H. Ortony
(Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21-59). Cambridge, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ryman, D. (1974). Childrens´ understanding of the classification of living organisms. Journal
of Biological Education, 8(3), 140-144.
Sloman, S. A., & Rips, L. J. (1998). Similarity as an explanatory construct. Cognition, 65, 87101.
Smith, E. E., & Sloman, S. A. (1994). Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Memory
and Cognition, 22(4), 377-386.
Wasmann-Frahm, A. (2006a). Vergleichen und Ordnen von Tieren - Wirbeltiere im
Zusammenhang unterrichten. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften, Biologie in der Schule,
55(1), 30-38.
Wasmann-Frahm, A. (2006b). Aufgaben für eine neue Lernkultur. Praxis der
Naturwissenschaften, Biologie in der Schule, 55(2), 32-38.
This document was added to the Education-line database on 5 December 2008
11