PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkou! from your tecord.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
=

DATEJDIJE ‘ DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. firm.
/‘ I. 130
Q.
T ,7 "WE iii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ FEB 91 £000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative ActiorVEqual Opportunity Institution

 

CASE STUDIES IN CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
THE INFLUENCE OF PRECONCEPTIONS AND
ASPECTS OF THE TASK ENVIRONMENT

by
Gerald W. Lott

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education
1988

ABSTRACT

CASE STUDIES IN CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
THE INFLUENCE OF PRECONCEPTIONS AND
ASPECTS OF THE TASK ENVIRONMENT

By
Gerald w. Lott

The motivation for this study is reflected in the growing concerns
that much current instruction in science is not working in a fundamental
sense. Students learning scientific concepts experience different patterns
of conceptual development, resulting in qualitatively different conceptions.
Many students do not seem to develop a functional understanding of the
science concepts which they study.

Prior studies have focused upon the ‘static’ views of student
conceptions (i.e., student conceptions at a point in time, prior to and
following instruction), and have not examined the ‘dynamics’ of conceptual
change over time. The key contribution of this study has been the design
and implementation of a unique data collection system and techniques for
data analysis which give a researcher the capability to explore the
dynamics of conceptual change. In an effort to see if this methodology
could be used to describe the parameters and patterns of conceptual
change, a study was conducted aimed at gaining insights into the problems
students have in learning scientific concepts.

An important feature of this study was the combined use of a group
administered instrument, classroom observation and clinical interviews to

gather data for constructing representations of student conceptions. This

study utilized a population of 22 fifth grade children, four of whom were
selected, based upon their unique and interesting pre-instruction
conceptual frameworks, for more intensive study (e.g., focused observation
and clinical interviews).

The group administered instrument utilized a multiple-choice
instrument intended to provide information necessary to “model mental
(e.g., cognitive) structures”, a process referred to in this study as
psychomodeling. The observation of actual instruction provided a detailed
representation of the milieu in which instruction occurred and assisted in
the determination of those experiences which may have influenced the
identified changes. Clinical interviews were used, as an in-depth method,
to provide a controlled situational context in an effort to infer conceptual
framework (i.e., for ascertaining cognitive structure) as well as follow it
through the learning experiences.

A two phased data analysis process was aimed at organizing the data
base for the effective translation of relevant observational and quantitative
information into interpretable patterns. The purpose of the Phase I
analyses was to identify the major changes that occurred in students’
conceptions, the period of time during which they occurred, and the specific
segment of instruction during which students encountered information
directly related to the change.

Initially, the changes identified in Phase I were noted for each of the
four target students. However, based on the voluminous amounts of data
collected during twelve hours of observation over a period of ten weeks, only
one student was selected for comprehensive analysis. Thus, this was a

case study of an individual student’s attempt to make sense of encounters

with physical phenomena during a sequence of learning experiences
concerning photosynthesis.

The results of the Phase I analyses were then used to guide the Phase
II analyses where the transcripts of clinical interviews and relevant
portions of lessons were used as primary data sources. The results
provided an organizing framework which assisted in the description of
important classroom, teacher, and student characteristics which could be
used to describe relevant patterns and reveal the dynamics of conceptual
change over time.

The results of this study demonstrated that the system for data
collection and methods for analysis developed for this research effort were
capable of revealing the patterns necessary to investigate the dynamics of
conceptual change. It has provided insights concerning the nature of
conceptual change and the reasons for the difficulties encountered in
teaching for conceptual change.

The findings which evolved from the use of this comprehensive
methodology suggest that matching instruction to the conceptual ecology of
the students is both essential and difficult. The instructional materials
must provide the teacher with not only an adequate strategy for promoting
conceptual change, but also an understanding of the purpose of each
specific learning activity. In addition, the importance and characteristics
of misconceptions should be explored along with the development of
improved patterns of planning and classroom teaching strategies (e.g.,
discussion skills) which enable the teacher to recognize student
misconceptions from the responses they offer and to initiate strategies

which will influence change.

© by Gerald W. Lott
1988

DEDICATION
To my children
Jessica Dawn and Benjamin Matthew

for whom I embarked upon the road to this achievement,
and for whom I hope the sacrifices were not too great,

and to my mother

Madeline E. Lott

who did not see me complete the task.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to thank the members of my Doctoral Committee: Dr.
Glenn D. Berkheimer, Chairman of the Committee and Professor of
Science Education, and Dr. Edward L. Smith, Dissertation Director and
Associate Professor of Science Education. Also, Dr. Robert Floden, As-
sociate Professor of Education, and Dr. Joseph Hanna, Professor of
Philosophy. The assistance, guidance, and encouragement they provided
during the writing of this dissertation is greatly appreciated.

The writer would also like to thank Janet E. Stoakes, who has been a signif-
icant influence upon my life in recent years, for providing support and en-
couragement in the completion of the final tasks in fullfillment of the de-
gree requirements. Appreciation must also be expressed for the efforts of
Beverly Ratta, the writers’ former wife, who gave of herself to support the
quest during the initial efforts.

Among those one encounters in life and the relationship grows into
friendship, a few leave a lasting impression. Three individuals who have
been important in my life and in this effort are acknowledged here: Lucy
Slinger and Nancy Landes (each providing encouragement and support
while we shared our time at Michigan State, and whose friendship in times
of trial provided inspiration), and Dr. Leon Schiffman, Professor of
Marketing at Baruch College - CUNY whose encouragement and insights
have been invaluable and whose fi'iendship will always be a part of my life.

The writer is also grateful to Dr. Paul Scipione, Professor of Marketing and
Advertising at Montclair State College for his assistance with the final
production of this dissertation.

Among those who provided their services in the support of the completion of
this study the author would like to thank the teacher who provided the
instructional environment for observation, and Dean Roth who assisted the
author in transfering his working papers and lesson transcripts from a

Tandy microcomputer system to an Apple II"' system.

The writer would also like to acknowledge Donna Aughey Ely of DAE
Associates whose support during the final effort provided the necessary
environment to complete the task. In addition, the access provided by
Lohmeyer Simpson Communications to a Macintosh II for the production
of an earlier draft of this document is greatly appreciated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Problem Overview ......................................................................... 1
Problem Statement .................................................................. 2
Study Overview ........................................................................ 3
Purpose .................................................................................. 7

Descriptive ....................................................................... 7
Questions ......................................................................... 7
Assumptions and Limitations ................................................... 8
Case Studies and Generalizability ....................................... 8
Inferring Cognitive Structure ............................................ 12
Case Studies of Conceptual Change .................................... 13
Implications for Curriculum and Teaching ............................... 16

2. Research Foundation ....................... ' ............................................. 18

Research Review ..................................................................... 18
Children’s Conceptions ..................................................... 18
Student Misconceptions ..................................................... 23
Conceptual Change .............................................. ‘ ............. 3

Research Paradigm ................................................................. 33
Epistemological Foundations ............................................. 34

The Nature of Knowledge ............................................ 34
Conceptual Change .................................................... 36
Cognitive Systems and Information ............................. 2E
Inferential Reasoning ................................................ 41
Methodological Foundation ................................................ 44
Research on Teaching ................................................ 45
Generalizability ......................................................... 48

Theoretical Foundation ............................................................ 48
Information-processing........................................ ............. 48
Conceptual Change ........................................................... 51
Teaching-Learning Process ............................................... 53

Parallels And Principles .......................................................... 54

3. Procedures .................................................................................. 57

Data Collection ........................................................................ 57

Context ............................................................................ 57
Instructional Unit ...................................................... 57
Classroom ................................................................. 64
Subjects .................................................................... 65
Teacher .................................................................... 65

viii

Context (continued)

School and Community ............................................... 65
Design ............................................................................. 65
Data Collection Techniques ................................................ 66

Psychomodeling Instrument ....................................... 66

Observation ............................................................... 67

Clinical Interviews .................................................... 71

Data Analysis ......................................................................... 72

Phase I Analysis .............................................................. 73

Student Conceptions ................................................... 73

Psychomodeling .................................................. 73

Clinical Interview ............................................... 76

Frame Matrix ..................................................... 77

Identification of Changes ..................................... 77

Instruction ................................................................ 80

Segmentation ...................................................... 80

Propositional Content .......................................... 80
Identification of Relevant Instructional

Segments ........................................................... 80

Phase II Analysis ............................................................. 81

Selection of Conceptual Changes .................................. 81

Clinical Interview Transcript Analysis ........................ 85

Instructional Transcript Analysis ............................... 85

4. Results ........................................................................................ 88
Conceptual Changes ................................................................ 90
Experience of Instruction ......................................................... 92

Case 1: Ben’s Understanding of Seed Part Functions ............ 93

Preconceptions .......................................................... 93

Ben’s Experience of Instruction ................................... 95

Postconceptions ......................................................... 1(1)

Patterns of Change Reflected in Group Data .................. 102
Case 2: Ben’s Concept of Plants and Light ........................... 104

Preconceptions .......................................................... 104

Ben’s Experience of Instruction ................................... 107

Postconceptions ......................................................... 113

Patterns of Change Reflected in Group Data .................. 116
Case 3: Ben’s Interpretation of Photosynthesis .................... 119

Preconceptions .......................................................... 119

Ben’s Experience of Instruction ................................... 121

Postconceptions ......................................................... 128

Patterns of Change Reflected in Group Data .................. 131
Key Non-Changes ............................................................. 131

Ben’s Naive Theories .................................................. 134

Model of Conceptual Change ....................................... 135

Ben’s Conceptual Evolution ......................................... 140

Conceptual Tenacity ................................................... 143

ix

4. Results (continued)

Issues Revealed in Case Studies ................................................ 148

Students and Experienced Instruction ................................ 148

Observations and Encountered Ideas ............................ 148

Propositional Links .................................................... 153

Preconceptions and Experienced Content ...................... 153

Persistence of Preconceptions ...................................... 157

Teacher’s Moves and Their Effects ...................................... 159

Observational Encounters ........................................... 159

Teacher Directedness and Task Interpretation .............. 163

Ambiguity ................................................................. 171

5. Conclusions ................................................................................. 176

Discussion .............................................................................. 177

Preconceptions ................................................................. 178

Ben’s Conceptual Change .................................................. 179

Communication Difficulties ............................................... 180

Exposing Event ................................................................. 181

Concept Application .......................................................... 181

Questioning Patterns ........................................................ 182

Implications ........................................................................... 183

Curriculum ..................................................................... 184

Teacher Education................ ............................................ 185

Educational Research ....................................................... 186
Appendices

A. Organization and Propositional Knowledge of Chapters 3-6 ..... 187

B. Psychomodeling Instrument ................................................ 212

C. Data Collection Forms ......................................................... 220

D. Propositional Frames for SCIIS Producers Unit Analysis ....... 223

E. Propositional Frames Affirmed During Instruction ................ 230

F. Propositional Frames Affirmed by Ben .................................. 235

List of References ............................................................................. 241

LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of the Strategy for Chapters 3-6 of SCIIS Communities ...... 59
2. Alternative Conceptions Concerning Food for Plants ........................ 108
3. Lesson 5.5 Discussion Concerning Chlorophyll ................................ 151
4. Task 5 of Lesson 6.7 Discussion ...................................................... 174

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Procedure for Inferring Conceptual Change .................................. 6
2. Inferring Cognitive Structure ....................................................... 14
3. Conceptual Network Structure ...................................................... 21
4. Example of Propositional Network Structure .................................. 74
5. Diagram of Phase I Analysis Process ............................................ 75
6. Inferential Bridge to Cognitive Structure Representation ................. 87
7. Seed Part Function Preconception Map'.... ...................................... 94
8. Seed Part Function Postconception Map ......................................... 101
9. Alternative Views of the Function of the Cotyledon .......................... 105
10. Ben’s Plants and Light Preconception Map ..................................... 106
11. Pre-Lesson 5.5 Plants and Light Conception Map ............................ 110
12. Post-Lesson 5.5 Plants and Light Conception Map ........................... 112
13. Plants and Light Postconception Map ............................................ 115
14. Alternative Explanations of Plant Growth in the Dark ..................... 117
15. Alternative Views of Plants Need for Light ..................................... 118
16. Plants and Food Preconception Map .............................................. 120
17. Intermediate Plants and Food Concept Map ................................... 125
18. Post-Instruction Concept Map ....................................................... 130
19. Alternative Views of How Plants Get Food ...................................... 132

xii

LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

20. Alternative Views of Light and Plants Making Food ........................ 133
21. Ben’s Anticipated Post-Instruction Concept Map ............................ 138
22. Knowledge Asserted by Ben Concerning Frames K, M and O ........... 144
23. Ben’s Conceptual Change ............................................................ 146

xiii

«s 4%...

s /..
m.
WWW

Wm- nub. _«..___. _

CHAPTER 1
PROBLEM OVERVIEW

Students learning science concepts experience different patterns of
conceptual development, resulting in qualitatively different conceptions.
Many students do not seem to develop a functional understanding of the
science concepts which they study. The view that preinstructional
knowledge will persist despite instruction has been supported by research
in physical science instruction (Champagne, Klopfer, and Anderson, 1980;
Gunstone and White, 1981; Leboutet-Barrell, 1976; McCloskey, Caramazza,
and Green, 1980; Terry, Jones, and Hurford, 1985; Trowbridge and
McDermott, 1980), and more recently by research in biological science
instruction (Roth, Smith, and Anderson, 1983). Any effort to determine the
factors which account for the differentiated degrees of cognitive competence
should involve a study of the changes in students’ conceptual frameworks
as they learn scientific concepts (Berkheimer, 1978; Brown, 1982).

This chapter is intended to provide a statement of the problem, an
overview of the study, the objectives, the assumptions and limitations which
guided its design and conduct, and the potential value for curriculum and

teaching.

 

This research was conducted with support from the National Institute of
Education under Grant No. NIE-G-81-0094. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institute
of Education.

W

The motivation for this study is reflected in the growing concerns
that much current instruction in science is not working in a fundamental
sense. That is, many students develop inaccurate conceptual frameworks
as the result of their instructional encounters. Clement (1982) found that
only thirty percent of the students enrolled in engineering had an under-
standing of Newton’s laws following a two semester sequence in physics.
Champagne, Klopfer, and Gunstone (1982) have argued that “the influence
of the students’ conceptions is to inhibit their understanding or distort their
observations and interpretations of experiments.” The naive conceptions
which the student brings to the educational setting prior to instruction has
an inhibiting effect on learning.

There have been many studies which have described the naive
conceptions that students hold and the tendency for such conceptions to
persist despite instruction. A few studies have examined in detail the in-
struction which apparently fails to bring about the intended learning.
Eaton, Anderson, and Smith (1984) suggest, as the result of the Planning
and Teaching Intermediate Science Study, that students have difficulty
learning because their misconceptions are not adequately dealt with during
instruction. Realizing the influence of misconceptions brought by students
to the educational setting, Minstrell (1984) implemented an instructional
strategy which took into account common student misconceptions. This
was found to result in a significant improvement in learning.

However, these and other studies have focused upon the ‘static’ views
of student conceptions (i.e., student conceptions at a point in time, prior to
and following instruction), and have not examined the ‘dynamics’ of con-

ceptual change over time. In addition, research has taken a global view of

conceptual change (i.e., classes of students) rather than exploring changes
on the part of an individual.

It is believed that the process of conceptual change is directly related
to the actual educational process occurring at a given time and must be
seen in that context. Conceptual change involves a change in the concep-
tual framework of the student through the action of internal mental capa-
bilities during involvement in learning tasks. Moreover, Posner, Strike,
Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) suggest that “whenever the learner encounters
a new phenomenon, he must rely on his current concepts to organize his
investigation.”

Thus, there is a need to look at the changes which actually do occur
and attempt to identify the factors which may account for them. While
there has been a growing awareness of the problem and relevant theoretical
developments, there is a need for studies of actual changes by an individual
and the instruction which influenced them (Driver and Erickson, 1983).

The key contribution of this study has been the design and imple-
mentation of a unique data collection system and techniques for data anal-
ysis which give a researcher the capability to explore the dynamics of
conceptual change. In an effort to see if this methodology could be used to
describe the parameters and patterns of conceptual change, a study was
conducted aimed at gaining insights into the problems students have in
learning scientific concepts.

W

The unit selected to provide the context within which this study
examined conceptual change was the 5th grade unit entitled “Producers” of
SCIIS Communities as revised by Smith, Anderson, and Berkheimer

(1981). Thus, this was a study of the cognitive structure and organization of

complex scientific knowledge concerning photosynthesis and its change in
structure during learning experiences. The unique aspect of this study is
that it uses an integrated qualitative and quantitative research design
which includes the intensive analysis of classroom interaction, the combi-
nation of group and individual analysis, and a focus on the instructional
experiences of individual students.

An important feature of the methodology used for this study was the
combined use of a group administered instrument, classroom observation
and clinical interviews to gather data for constructing representations of
student conceptions. This study utilized a population of 22 fifth grade
children, four of whom were selected, based upon their unique and inter-
esting pre-instruction conceptual frameworks, for more intensive study
(e.g., focused observation and clinical interviews).

The group administered instrument utilized a multiple-choice in-
strument intended to provide information necessary to ‘model mental (e.g.,
cognitive) structures,’ a process referred to in this study as
psychomodeling. Moreover, there is the use of an intensive analysis of ac—
tual instruction including both verbal and nonverbal aspects of individual
student's instructional experience. This observation of actual instruction
provided a detailed representation of the milieu in which instruction oc-
curred and assisted in the determination of those experiences which may
have influenced the identified changes. Clinical interviews were used to
provide a controlled situational context in an effort to infer conceptual
framework as well as follow it through the learning experiences.

The approach involved the identification of changes in a student’s in-
ferred conceptual framework in an effort to develop an understanding of

conceptual change. This was accomplished through the use of

psychomodeling, observational, and clinical interview methods to collect
data necessary to formulate sequential representations of a conceptual
framework, which could then in turn be used to examine the patterns of
conceptual change. A schematic representation of this procedure is shown
in Figure 1. The curricular unit provided the task environment for
observations, the focal point for clinical interviews, and the propositional
knowledge for psychomodeling instrumentation.

A two phased data analysis process was aimed at organizing the data
base for the effective translation of relevant observational and quantitative
information into interpretable patterns. The purpose of the Phase I anal-
ysis was to identify the major changes that occurred in students’
conceptions, the period of time during which they occurred, and the specific
segment of instruction during which students encountered information
directly related to the change.

Initially, the changes indentified in Phase I were noted for each of
the four target students. However, based on the voluminous amounts of
data collected during twelve hours of observation over a period of ten weeks,
only one student was selected for comprehensive analysis. Thus, this was a
case study of an individual student’s attempt to make sense of encounters
with physical phenomena during a sequence of learning experiences con-
cerning photosynthesis.

The results of the Phase I analysis was then used to guide the Phase
II analysis where the transcripts of clinical interviews and relevant por-
tions of lessons were used as primary data sources. The results provided

an organizing framework which assisted in the description of

35.558 manage 3398.89 2: :93? 555 E355 05 .3 53
1358.39— 2» 339$ 53 :oBmEomnc 868330 685 .3 carom a .83 coboufi as manage
xHoBoEwé 33328 .3 89%an 338239 698:0 3390250 marksman pom oasvooosm A grab

 

Eon—Fan:—
mam—3.25.5»?—

 

mo 3.825

 

 

 

 

 

 

356.5
33m 8 33m 59¢
v foBoEEm m fazofiaum « 38323.5
$398.80 133350 $533.80
33m . Sm 35m m 33m
3 52.. a 33 3

89¢

3% 3% 3%

go 3525
033.3 we 3:035

.3 8 535 023.5

3.30.5 ,
3,223:— =33:an

Ll

 

 

  
   

a 3.5305,»;
13.3850

353
5?...

important classroom, teacher and student characteristics which could be
used to describe relevant patterns and reveal the dynamics of conceptual

change over time.

Bums
D . I.

As a descriptive study the intent of this research was to investigate
the empirical nature of conceptual change. The patterns and parameters
thus exposed can be used along with the current theoretical foundations of
conceptual change (see Driver and Easley, 1978; Hewson, 1981; Nussbaum
and Novick, 1982; Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog, 1982; and Toulmin,
1972) to formulate issues for further research, as well as recommendations
for curriculum development and teacher education based upon the charac-
teristics of student conceptions and the nature of conceptual change.

The study was descriptive and aimed primarily at generating
hypotheses. Moreover, the purpose of the study was to describe the
parameters and patterns of conceptual change in an effort to gain insight
into the problems students have in learning abstract concepts. This was an
exploratory study aimed at developing the foundation for research studies of
the process by which individuals “come to know,” or to understand the
world. Discovering patterns of conceptual change will provide the nec-
essary framework from which an explanation of the process of conceptual
change can be sought through additional research efforts.

Questions

This research opens new territory with its effort to follow the changes

in these pre-conceptions during the student involvement in a science-ori-

ented task environment. The question of interest in this study is:

0 What are the patterns and regularities in instances where students
change their preconceptions toward more scientific ones having
greater complexity and generality?

In an effort to resolve this question the following points have been explored:

' How do students respond to incongruities between their preconcep-

tions and the scientific content they encounter?

What changes occur in students’ conceptions as they experience

instruction?

How do students’ preconceptions influence their interpretation of in-

structional content?

What features of instruction influence the occurrence and direction
of changes in students’ conceptions?
The effort to resolve these questions has involved the application of tech-
niques from cognitive science to the exploration of phenomena in a science
education setting.
5 I. I I . 'I |°

The theoretical framework which guided the design and conduct of
this research represents a set of assumptions of which the reader should be
aware. These assumptions concern the nature of case studies and the
generalizability of the results, as well as the process for inferring cognitive
structure. The inherent limitations are two-fold; they concern what this
research is a case(s) of and what it is not a case(s) of.
Q SI 1' l G 1' I TI

The improvement of the teaching and learning process can be facili-
tated by seeking, through the application of creative imagination, a less
limited perspective of the classroom environment and the actions which

occur within it. Through previous research efforts (Nussbaum and N ovick,

1982; Sendelbach, 1980; Smith and Anderson, 1983) it has been documented
that by observing the classroom situation it is possible to find patterns
which lead to greater insights concerning the relationships which influ-
ence learning.

A guiding assumption of this research is that behavior results from
the interaction of innate information processing capacities and learning
experiences. The key benefit of the case study approach is that it provides a
deep understanding of classroom phenomena which results in a general-
izability based upon the increased ability to make distinctions and recognize
parallelism in experiences; what Stake (1978) refers to as “naturalistic
generalizability.” The goal of this form of research is to impose some order
on the perceptions of what is happening. and through these efforts increase
the explanatory power of the descriptions of classroom occurrences.

This view of generalizability ensues from the supposition that, as the
principle means of the evolution of knowledge, the notion of theory ap-
praisal which employs the premises of the reduction of uncertainty or hy-
pothesis testing does not adequately model our search for reality. The ar-
gument for this view revolves around the belief that reality is far too rich
and varied to be adequately reflected in a logical theory of probability involv-
ing the degree of confirmation. Hanna (1980) submits that the intent of
inferential inquiry is to discover evidence and formulate theories which
increase our information about natural or sociological phenomena. This
increase of information content results in a conceptual framework which is
less limited in its ability to describe and explain phenomena as a result of
insights which lead to the identification of more comprehensive patterns

which support more restrictive distinctions.

10

Thus, the important factor in the growth of knowledge through
inferential reasoning is the information content of our representation of the
world. The generalizability of this research can be found in the growth of
knowledge which it generates. As Geertz (1983) has argued:

The move of social theory toward seeing social action as
configuring meaning and conveying it, ..., opens up a range of
possibilities for explaining why we do the things we do in the
way that we do them far wider than that offered by the pulls
and pushes imagery of more standard views. (p. 233)

Since the conveying of meaning through information exchange is an
important aspect of all cognitive systems we will reject the support
paradigm and focus our attention on the meaning discerned from observa-
tions as the parameter of interest for appraising scientific theories. The
generalizability of social science research is viewed to come from the use of
its observations to falsify theories as opposed to the traditional methodology
of trying to arrive at theories on the basis of an inductive inference from
observations.

The conduct of this research recognizes that showing a theory to be
false is immensely more effective in the appraisal of theories. Moreover,
there is a recognition that the principal approach to increasing the validity
of case study results is by triangulation in an effort to substantiate the per-
ceived constancy of the observed phenomena. Triangulation will occur, in
terms of this case study, across multiple studies as other researchers ex-
amine the issues of conceptual change manifest in the data. Campbell
(1975), as part of a discussion concerning degrees of freedom in qualitative
research, argues that there are “great gains in understanding which such

multiple ethnographer studies would introduce” (p. 190). This study will,

11

in triangulation with the results of other studies, enhance our understand-
ing of how changes in children’s concepts are influenced by their
experiences.

Thus, a case study can be considered valid if it gives a well-grounded
and useful representation of the case in a specific setting which lends itself
to comparative analysis. The more alternatives a semantic representation
admits of, the more probable it is; while the more alternatives a semantic
representation excludes, the more informative it is. This view of the
research process which has provided a framework within which to conduct
this study, while accepting the value of internal indices which provide
convergent evidence, seeks a more enlightening perspective and argues
that the assessment of generalizability goes beyond the analysis of one case
study. Miles and Huberman (1984) argue in their treatise on qualitative
data analysis that support for case study findings is accumulated “by
showing that independent measures (e.g., other case studies) of it agree
with it or, at least, don't contradict it” (p. 234).

Especially in the instance of case studies, it is most appropriate to be-
gin with the formulation of descriptive theories before one attempts to de-
velop theories with predictive, or explanatory power. It is therefore more
appropriate to look at particular research data from case studies as having
a measure of descriptive power when considering its generalizability.

Those who conduct qualitative (i.e., naturalistic) research approach
the search for universals differently than do those who conduct positivist
research on teaching. Ethnographic research is based upon several as-
sumptions regarding the educational process. First among these is that an
important source of explanation for classroom phenomena is the social

context in which teaching and learning occur. The members of the ob-

served situation are regarded as knowledgeable beings whose behavior is
purposeful and meaningful in this context. It is important to note that the
types of thought processes exhibited in classrooms appear to be very depen-
dent upon the nature of the cognitive task focused upon. Thus, this re-
search will take into consideration the importance of the environmental
factors influencing instruction, and the process of social interaction.

Naturalistic researchers, in their quest to interpret their experiences
and seek insights for improving the teaching-learning process, are more
cautious in their assumptions than are those who apply the positivistic
paradigm to the study of teaching (Lott, 1981b). Given these assumptions
about the state of nature in social life that interpretive researchers make,
they pursue insights which may transcend the site of the research.
Concrete universals are arrived at by studying a specific case in great detail
and then comparing it with other cases studied in equally great detail.

Erickson (1986) argues that “the primary concern of interpretive re-
search is particularizability, rather than generalizability” (p. 130). This
view of the focus of research rests upon the belief that the goal of qualitative
analysis is to reveal the multiple layers of universality. The task is to dis-
cover what is broadly universal, what generalizes to other similar
situations, what is unique to the given situation. Each instance of a class-
room is seen as its own unique system, which nonetheless displays univer-
sal properties of teaching.
I fl . Q . | . SI I

It is becoming generally accepted that understanding of classroom
teaching and its effects on learning requires going beyond the description of
observable behavior to the investigation of the meanings and antecedents of

that behavior (Clark and Yinger, 1978). The learners are viewed as having

certain prior knowledge, attitudes, and abilities which influence and are
influenced by, classroom instruction resulting in particular learning out-
comes for each student. '

The relation between observed responses and claims about cognitive
structure guided the process for inferring cognitive structure. It is thought
that conceptual change is influenced by the context within which it occurs,
thus a representation of the context will be attempted utilizing observational
data to provide a description of the classroom milieu and the context of
instruction. A student's conceptual framework will be inferred from data
obtained as students explain scientific phenomena and develop and test
hypotheses (see Figure 2).

Observed task performance was viewed as resulting from an
application of an individual's knowledge and thus as providing a basis for
inferences about the underlying knowledge. In keeping with contemporary
cognitive psychology, as well as Piagetian views, we believe that learning
involves an interaction between a student's prior knowledge and his or her
current experience. This view suggests that it is important to know what
the students’ prior knowledge is and that students may end up with quite
different knowledge as a result of apparently similar experiences. Thus, it
is important to characterize students’ knowledge, and not just quantify it.
The approach used in this study was to develop models of student
knowledge.

Wage

There were no instances of major conceptual changes to analyze.
Rather there were several small changes (i.e., “conceptual capture”
(Hewson, 1981)) and non-changes. The reason this is enlightening about

the nature of conceptual change will be explained.

14

 

  
 
   
 
   
       
   

observed

phenomena
and behavior

FIGURE 2.

Situational
Context

 

  

Conceptual
Framework

 

Explanation
Sentence

 

 

Inferring Cognitive Structure. (Using the explanation
of phenomena and the representation of the situational
context you can infer the conceptual framework for the
student who gave the explanation.)

15

This is a case study of an individual student’s attempt to make sense
of encounters with physical phenomena during a sequence of learning ex-
periences concerning photosynthesis. Representations of the subject’s con-
ceptual framework were used to reveal the dynamics over time. In an effort
to expose relevant patterns and regularities within the sequence of learning
experiences the actual instruction was observed so as to determine experi-
ences which may have influenced the selected changes.

A major concern in the research is the effect of the instruction on
student knowledge. In particular there was an interest in the extent to
which students' knowledge comes to match that which the program mate-
rials identify as potential learning outcomes. This research can be viewed
as attempting to describe and account for the patterns of student knowledge
that result from instruction.

Seeing rather than measuring was the activity of this project. The
interest was to seek representations of experience which could be used to
illustrate issues of conceptual change. These issues were the central foci;
guiding the analysis, organizing the understanding. This research was
experience-oriented; what principally we hoped to see was not something to
hold a ruler to. It consisted of intensive field observations and interviews as
a means of recording differing images and meanings. The naturalistic
orientation focused attention more to images and meanings than to proper-
ties and measurements; as such they were to form the conceptual structure
for the work. The goal of this effort is to provide a knowledge base for
addressing the problems identified through improved teacher education as

well as curriculum development and revision.

16

I l. |° E Q . l l I l .
Reid (1978) has argued that research is needed to enable us to com-

prehend the nature of disciplinary knowledge, learners, teaching, and mi-
lieus such that this understanding can be infused into curriculum plan-
ning for schools. He contends that curricular decisions are concerned with
what should be done and thus entail a value component which necessitates
the justification through an ideational foundation. Through an under-
standing of the conceptual change process a determination can be made
regarding how to address given goals or conceptual frameworks as part of
the instructional sequence.

Analyzing the paths of conceptual change can lead to an under-
standing of the relationships between concept formation and the task envi-
ronment which the students encounter in the classroom. The task envi-
ronment is a concept which has been elaborated on by Newell and Simon
(1972), and refers to an environment which is goal-oriented in the sense
that there exists a task or problem to be encountered. The tasks (i.e.,
problems) which are of interest in this study involve student participation
in experimental set-ups and corresponding key questions which were in-
tended to guide the observation and interpretation of phenomena during a
sequence of learning experiences concerning photosynthesis.

The importance of this relationship can be perceived in the lack of
homogeneity in conceptions, as well as the existence of certain naive
conceptions, prior to instruction. Individuals have different conceptions of
subject matter and apprehend curricular tasks in various ways. It is
therefore in the interest of curricular improvement that systematic re-
search on the nature of conceptual change should be embarked upon

through carefully designed studies of human intellectual functioning. The

17

synthesis of such research can provide a framework within which curric-
ular decisions can be articulated.

Since an important goal of science instruction is the modification of
students’ conceptions of natural and physical phenomena, it is important to
understand the nature of such changes and the conditions under which
they are most likely to occur. A study of the changes in students’ concep-
tual frameworks as they learn scientific concepts can help to determine the
factors that account for this variation. It is through an understanding of
the process of conceptual change that appropriate learning experiences can
be provided in an effort to support or enhance the development of conceptual
frameworks. Through an attempt to determine the conditions which lead
to and facilitate a successful conceptual change a theory of conceptual

change may evolve.

CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH FOUNDATION

This chapter will review the previous research which provides back-
ground for this study, and the theoretical and methodological assumptions
which guided the research. The previous research which is examined in-
cludes that concerned with children’s conceptions, their misconceptions,
and the growing knowledge base concerned with conceptual change in the
educational setting. Theoretical assumptions are then identified in an ef-
fort to reveal the epistomological and methodological foundation for the
study.

W

This section deals with the extent to which this research builds upon
previous research. This will involve an examination of current and past
research efforts concerning children’s conceptions, student’s
misconceptions, and conceptual change. The narrative will describe the
way in which these studies have contributed ideas and direction to this
study. Moreover, the section will provide an indication of the extent to
which the study moves the field ahead in some significant manner.

Cl .1 l , Q |'

Prior to the work of such science educators as Gunstone and White
(1981), Leboutet-Barrell (1976), Nussbaum and Novak (1976), Rowell and
Dawson (1977), Viennot (1980) and Pines, et. al. (1978), much of the research
on science learning utilized the assessment of the ‘amount’ known by stu-
dents as represented by scores on norm or criterion-referenced tests. The
specific knowledge an individual has, or the alternative conceptions that

individual may use to interpret experience, have not been a focus of most

previous research efforts. The interest in student learning outcomes has
been on the results and not the patterns of conceptual change. In order to
determine the patterns and parameters of conceptual change, an approach
is necessary for inferring student conceptions.

The research by Smith (1980b) was aimed at developing methods for
assessing and modeling students’ knowledge of a given topic. The interest
has been to determine the effect of instruction upon student conceptions
through the process of investigating their match with the potential learning
outcomes as identified by the program materials. The reliability of this ap-
proach in the development of psychomodeling instrumentation was investi-
gated (Caldwell, 1980).

Methods for the assessment and modeling of student knowledge for a
given topic were applied through the development and utilization of a mul-
tiple choice instrument for the “Oxygen-Carbon Dioxide Cycle” Unit of SCIS
Ecosystems (Smith,1980b). The analysis of this unit for a prior study
(Sendelbach, 1980) resulted in the identification of a set of propositions
which the students should encounter through participation in the sug-
gested activities. A subset of the propositions identified in the analysis were
selected and used in the development of multiple choice items for the test
which was intended to provide data relevant to declarative propositional
knowledge. The techniques for quantitatively analyzing student responses
were then formulated and applied (Smith, 1980a).

The development of the psychomodeling instrument was guided by a
cognitive view of knowledge in which two kinds of knowledge are
distinguished; propositional and procedural (Greeno, 1976), and their rela-
tion to student cognitive performance. An idividual’s knowledge is viewed

as consisting of integrated sets of propositions and procedures. The

conception of propositional knowledge with which this research effort has
dealt is that of interrelated statements having a truth value represented by
conceptual networks (see Figure 3). A conceptual network is a representa-
tion of knowledge in which concepts are nodes connected by labeled,
directional relations. Such a network provides a means by which the inter-
relations among propositions can be represented.

An important aspect of this developmental task (i.e., the formulation
of a psychomodeling instrument) is the segmentation of the instructional
unit in such detail that the propositional knowledge addressed can be used
to develop items. Lucas and McConkie (1980) have encouraged this kind of
an approach and have indicated that “the passage to which questions are to
be related be segmented into units of sufficient detail for the user’s needs,
with each unit numbered for referential purposes” (p. 134).

The research by Lott (1980) indicated that more than the use of a psy-
chomodeling instrument was needed to follow conceptual change. If a dy-
namic process such as conceptual change is to be descriptively investigated
then the representations provided by the psychomodeling instrumentation
must be supplemented. Sutton (1980) has argued that “any useful concep-
tualization of how a learner’s thought is organized must include some pic-
ture of its dynamics as well as its statics” (p. 107). However, in order to
have adequate data upon which to attempt to study patterns of conceptual
change during student involvement within the task environment, one must
be able to infer the conceptual framework between those points in time

when an instrument is administered.

 

Gn:cn:ss D

 

 

 

 

 

 

389‘“ K PHOTO-
GRODUCER% SYNTHESIS
input m£ OXYGEN fi)

 

AND

 

 

 

CARBON
C LIGHT ] (WATER ) (DIOXIZOEm )

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

from location
location _
PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT
[ SUN j
output
input
GROANISM9¢ RESPIRATION
agent k

 

 

isa

C PROCESS )

 

 

FIGURE 3. Conceptual Network Structure. (A means by which know-
ledge structures are represented by a labeled, connected
network consisting of nodes interconnected by relations.
Each relation indicates an association between two nodes,
with the interpretation depending both on the label and on

the direction in which the relation is traversed.)

In an effort to accommodate this need, the utilization of clinical in-
terviews was included in the research design of this study. This approach
has the potential for revealing a student’s conceptual framework through
the method of eliciting verbal explanations of scientific phenomena and
thus providing an avenue through which a descriptive assessment of a
student’s conceptual framework can be formulated. Posner and Gertzog

(1979) have suggested that the aim of the clinical interview is:

to ascertain the nature and extent of an individual’s knowl-
edge about a particular domain by identifying the relevant con-
ceptions he or she holds and the perceived relationships
among those conceptions (p. 2).

The clinical interview involves the use of a technique which provides the
necessary data for the assessment of student conceptions.

This approach to the study of student’s conceptions has been used by
Pines, Novak, Posner and VanKirk (1978) and Posner and Gertzog (1979) in
science education, and has been used by Erlwanger (1974) and Confrey
(1980) in mathematics education. However, these studies have only been
concerned with the ‘statics’ of student’s conceptions, or if interested in con-
ceptual change have only utilized undergraduate students as subjects.
This study will utilize the clinical interview technique with intermediate
school students in an effort to describe the patterns of conceptual change.

The observation of the context of classroom instruction will build
upon the ethnographic research of Sendelbach (1980), the developmental
work of Hollon, Anderson and Smith (1981), and the experiences of the
Planning and Teaching Intermediate Science Study (smith & Anderson,
1984).

SI 1 | M. |'

Recent reported research on student misconceptions in science and
mathematics established that students generally possess conceptions about
curricular topics before they begin to study them (Helm & Novak, 1983).
Further, such preconceptions often persist despite instruction on scientific
theories that contradict them. Discrepancies between the students’ post-in-
struction conceptions and the scientific theories taught often represent im-
portant failures of instruction. The research suggests that preconceptions
actively compete with scientific alternatives as organizing structures for
students’ experience of instruction and as explanations for their everyday
experience.

Champagne, Klopfer and Gunstone (1982) point out in a review of the
literature that physics learning studies demonstrate that students’ pre-in-
structional world knowledge is ofizen logically antagonistic to the principles
of Newtonian mechanics taught in introductory physics. They suggest that
students have descriptive and explanatory systems for scientific phenom-
ena that develop before they experience formal study of the subject. These
descriptive and explanatory systems differ in significant ways from those
the students are expected to learn as the result of formal study.

Case studies in mathematics conducted by Erlwanger (1974) suggeSt
that each child developes a conception which appears to function as a rela-
tively stable, cohesive system of interrelated ideas, beliefs and views about
mathematics. Discussions with the children revealed. conceptions that
were unanticipated and different from an adult view of mathematics.
Driver and Erickson (1983) argue that students may develop conceptual

structures as a result of instruction and other experiences which can be

internally consistent and quite elaborate, but which do not necessarily
relate to actual phenomena.

Cognitive science research has begun to yield research findings
which reveal the misconceptions of students in varied subject matters.
McCloskey, Caramazza and Green (1980) found that many students who
have completed one or more physics courses fail to understand the most
fundamental principles of mechanics. Their findings revealed that stu-
dents do not merely lack such knowledge; they espouse “laws of motion”
that are at variance with formal physical laws. They argued that little con-
sideration has been given to the possibility that knowledge representations
may frequently be at variance with physical reality. In another study,
Doran (1972) investigated the occurrence of common misconceptions related
to the kinetic theory of matter by 7-12 year old pupils. Za’rour (1975) in his
study of science misconceptions among high school and university students
in Lebanon isolated twenty common misconceptions in the areas of physics,
earth science, chemistry and biology.

In addition to research which has attempted to describe student mis-
conceptions there is evidence that these alternative conceptions are re-
sistant to change. A study by Leboutet-Barrell (1976) indicates that high
school and college students have misconceptions about force and motion
which persist despite instruction. Moreover, these misconceptions were
described as pre-Galilean. Champagne, Klopfer and Anderson (1980) found
these effects of resistance to change particularly striking in the context of
mechanics where prior to formal instruction young people and adults were
found to have a conception of motion that is more Aristotelian than

Newtonian. Other research findings by Gunstone and White (1981) showed

that remnants of the Aristotelian conception persist with many
“successful” physics students.

Children’s underlying conceptions (referred to as “alternative
frameworks” by Nussbaum and Novick (1982), “naive theories” by Eaton,
Anderson and Smith (1984), and “misconceptions” by Anderson and Smith
(1984)) have been found to influence their observable behavior. The case
studies conducted by Erlwanger (1974) suggest that as children learn they
develop their own conceptions of mathematics that influence their mathe-
matical behavior and subsequent learning. Moreover, he reported that the
teachers often misunderstood and misjudged the nature of the children’s
understanding and progress, and the adequacy of their learning
experiences.

Champagne, Klopfer and Gunstone (1982) also contend that prior
knowledge affects students’ comprehension of science instruction.
Students interpret instructional events (e.g., experiments and expository
text) in the context of the conceptual scheme they currently hold, not the one
that the experiments or the text are designed to convey. It is not the stu-
dents’ lack of prior knowledge which makes the learning of this topic so
difficult, rather their conflicting knowledge.

Based upon the research which they have reviewed, Driver and
Erickson (1983) argue that there is now growing interest in the notion that
students do possess “invented ideas” based upon their interpretations of
sensory impressions. Moreover, these “invented ideas” influence the ways
in which they respond to and understand the disciplinary knowledge as
presented in the classroom. In laying out a generative learning model,

Osborne and Wittrock (1983) also argue that students “invent a model or

explanation” which serves to organize the information obtained from an
experiment or demonstration.

Considerable research has been done to identify student
misconceptions. In a study of the mole concept, Duncan and J ohnstone
(1973) analysed the difficulties of 14-15 year old pupils who were following
the Scottish alternative 0 grade syllabus in chemistry. They reported three
areas of difficulty. J ohnstone, MacDonald and Webb (197 7), in a study with
16-18 years old chemistry students where they studied the misconceptions
related to concepts in thermodynamics, reported that the results indicated 8
major misconceptions. In a study of high school and university students,
Lebouter (1976) indentified commonly held misconceptions related to ideas
of force and motion which persist despite instruction.

The variety of misconceptions and their persistence have been ex-
plored more thoroughly by Viennot (1974) who analysed attempts at solving
dynamics problems by university physics students. The results indicate
that certain pre-Galilean ideas persist. An earlier study by Kuethe (1963)
found a class of questions about common astronomical or physical phe-
nomena to which secondary school pupils, in spite of instruction in the
sciences, gave a ready reply but often answered incorrectly. Brumby (197 9)
found that O-Level students in England persist in holding a Lamarckian
conception of evolution despite a Darwinian instructional approach.
Camamazza (1981) has reported that one third of a group of introductory
college physics students persisted in misconceptions about the trajectory of
objects emerging from a circular track, despite formal instruction in
Newtonian mechanics. Norman and Clement (1981) have shown that
many university students tenaciously cling to misconceptions about the na-

ture of electric circuits.

The results of these and other studies indicate that traditional in-
struction does not facilitate an appropriate reconciliation of preinstruc-
tional knowledge with the content of instruction. Alternative conceptual
systems are remarkably resistant to change by exposure to traditional in-
structional methods. Moreover, there appears to be evidence (Champagne,
Klopfer and Gunstone, 1982; diSessa, 1982; Nussbaum and Novick, 1982;
Siegler and Klahr, 1982) that these alternative conceptual systems are not
facilitative to the learning process; they may actually inhibit conceptual
change.

Often the influence of the students’ conceptions is to inhibit their un-
derstanding or distort their observations and interpretations of
experiments. Other research (Champagne, Klopfer and Anderson, 1980)
demonstrates that the belief in the proposition is not readily changed by
instruction, the prior knowledge having an inhibiting effect on learning.
One important factor that may account for students’ learning difficulties
then, is the reluctance, or perhaps inability, of students to alter their pre-
sent commitments in favour of the school-sanctioned interpretation.

Diagnosing a pupil’s misconceptions appropriately is but the first
step toward helping the pupil to replace his persistant preconceptions with
the scientific conceptions. Nussbaum (1980) suggests that while there is a
need to diagnose pupils’ answers for possibly existing misconceptions,
many difficulties encountered by students in comprehending and internal-
izing certain concepts would be avoided if teachers were better prepared to
listen to their pupils, understand the nature of their misconceptions and, in
turn, make constructive use of this knowledge on the pupil’s behalf.
Andersson (1980) has argued that discussions and experiments can in-

crease the pupils’ awareness of inconsistencies in their ways of reasoning

and contribute to an attitude of searching for invariants and principles be-
yond what is specific.

Rowell and Dawson (1977) also explicitly considered common mis-
conceptions when designing instruction concerned with floating and sink-
ing bodies. Their findings indicate that despite efforts to refute misconcep-
tions in instruction, some misconceptions persisted. In a study by Driver
(197 3), it was found that although alternative theoretical frameworks to ex-
plain observations were introduced to the students and used during the
instruction, the counter-examples and conflicting evidence did not produce
changes in students’ thinking. As the results of these studies suggest, the
use of counter examples may not be sufficient in itself to produce change in
pupils’ underlying conceptualizations. _

The studies reported here are an indication of the existence of a
problem; pupils develop misconceptions which can persist despite
instruction. However, the development of a taxonomy of such misconcep-
tions does not yield interpretive power. Not until the reasons for the mis-
conceptions are understood will progress be made in instructional terms.
McCloskey, Caramazza and Green (1980) have argued that educators in the
sciences should not treat students as merely lacking the correct
information. Instead, educators should take into account the fact that
many students have strong preconceptions and misconceptions. When a
student’s naive beliefs are not addressed, instruction may only serve to pro-
vide the student with new terminology for expressing his erroneous beliefs.
W

The existence and persistence of students preconceptions implies
that learning involves not simply the acquisition or formation of new

concepts. It involves the modification of existing concepts or their

replacement with appropriate alternatives (i.e., conceptual change)
(Toulmin, 1972; Brown, 1977). The predominant instructional question that
follows from this position is one of how to facilitate some sort of “conceptual
change” in the learner.

While it can be argued that the goal of the instructional process is the
facilitation of conceptual change, Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog
(1982) affirm that identifying misconceptions (i.e., alternative frameworks)
and understanding some reasons for their persistence, falls short of devel-
oping a reasonable view of how a student’s current ideas interact with new,
incompatible ideas. Nussbaum and Novick (1982) have stated that studies of
student alternative frameworks “demonstrate that in learning basic science
concepts students are not passive absorbers of ‘new knowledge’, but rather
active participants who must effect substantive changes in their
preconceptions (p. 1).”

Whenever the learner encounters a new phenomenon, he or she
must rely on his or her current concepts to organize his or her
investigation. The childs’ own commitments are likely to be highly signifi-
cant in determining what they find initially plausible and, thus, in shaping
their conceptual changes. This suggests to Posner, Strike, Hewson and
Gertzog (1982) that it is important to find out just what epistemological
commitments students have, if one Wants to understand what they are
likely to find initially plausible or implausible and more generally, to un-
derstand their processes of conceptual change. However, they point out
that there has been no well-articulated theory explaining or describing the
substantive dimensions of the process by which pe0ple’s central, organizing
concepts change from one set of concepts to another set, incompatible with

the first.

Brown (1982) argues for seeking out potential models for understand-
ing and promoting conceptual change in students. She recommends ob-
taining rich and detailed descriptions of the qualitative differences between
students within a particular domain by observing learning actually taking
place within a learner, or group of subjects, over time. It is her contention
that most work on the assessment of conceptual frameworks has tended to
focus on the ‘snap-shot’ model rather than a continuous monitoring model.

Hewson (1981) has advocated a theoretical perspective of conceptual
change which articulates the conditions under which an individual hold-
ing a set of conceptions of natural phenomena, when confronted by new ex-
periences will either keep his or her conceptions substantially unaltered in
the process of incorporating these experiences, or have to replace them be-
cause of their inadequacy. A new conception 0' could be rejected; or
reconciled (i.e., incorporated) with C in a process referred to as conceptual
capture; or there may be a conceptual exchange whereby C is replaced by 0'
because they are mutually irreconcilable. He suggests that if he or she
holds a plausible alternative conception which contridicts that which is
presented, the model indicates that the new material cannot be meaning-
fully incorporated because it is not plausible.

In addition to Hewson (1981), several other researchers have pro-
posed models of conceptual change. Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog
(1982) propose four conditions that must be fulfilled if accommodation is
likely to occur, that is, if students are to make changes in their central
concepts. These include:

0 There must be dissatisfaction with existing conceptions.

0 A new conception must be intelligible.

' A new conception must be initially plausible.

31

0 A new conception must appear fruitful (i.e., lead to new
insights and discoveries).
Nussbaum and Novick (1982) on the other hand describe a general teaching
strategy for use when significant accommodation is expected:
0 First, exposure of students’ alternative conceptions through
their responses to an “exposing event”.

0 This is followed by sharpening student awareness of their

own and other students’ alternative conceptions through
discussion and debate.

0 Next, the creation of conceptual conflict by having the stu-

dents attempt to explain a discrepant event.

0 Finally, encouraging and guiding cognitive accommodation

and the invention of a new conceptual model consistent
with the accepted scientific conception.

In addition to the research which has focussed on identifying and
documenting the conceptual frameworks used by students in classroom
settings, another strand of research activity has examined the effect of in-
tervention strategies on student frameworks. Champagne, Klopfer and
Gunstone (1982) have applied the theory and empirical findings of cognitive
psychology (mainly information processing theory) in making explicit an
instructional design model for initiating cognitive change. They engaged
students in Socratic-type dialogues so as to arrive at explicit, qualitative re-
sponses to a series of problem statements. The teacher then provided the
expert’s analysis of the problems and asked the students to analyze their
own solutions in the light of the expert’s solution. The assessment of the
effectiveness of engaging uninstructed students in this type of Socratic in-

structional dialogue was based on a qualitative analysis of mechanics

32

problems. They reported no appreciable differences being discerned be-
tween the pre- and post-instruction cognitive states.

Osborne and Wittrock (1983) have drawn extensively upon informa-
tion processing psychology to develop a “generative learning model” which
gives a general description of the processes a learner goes through in con-
structing new knowledge. This model suggests three teaching stages as
necessary to promote conceptual change: first, students attention is fo-
cussed on a range of experiences relevant to the topic in order to familiarise
them with the materials and the phenomena; second, students are encour-
aged to make their personal ideas public through discussion and debate so
that these may be challenged; third, the accepted model is presented and
students are encouraged to explore the utility of various models by applying
them to familiar and novel problem solving tasks.

Another formal model of conceptual change has been elaborated by
Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog (1982). Drawing upon current work in
the philosophy of science (Kuhn, 1970; Lakatos, 1970; and Toulmin, 1972)
and information processing psychology (Norman and Rummelhart, 1975),
they have distinguished between gradual, evolutionary changes and
discontinuous, revolutionary changes in conceptual structure. The results
they report for their intervention studies are in general very encouraging as
they seem to be obtaining some success in bringing about significant con-
ceptual changes for many of the students in the topic areas they have ex-
plored to date. .

Nussbaum and Novick (1982) applied their model to the development
and assessment of an instructional strategy promoting specific changes in
sixth-grade students’ conceptions of the nature of gases. The purpose of the

study was to implement and make a qualitative assessment of a teaching

strategy designed to promote conceptual change. They reported that the
strategy was “highly efficient in creating cognitive challenge and motiva-
tion for learning,” but “did not lead to the desired total conceptual change in
all students (p. 17).” They concluded that:

our findings may be interpreted to mean that a major con-
ceptual change does not occur, even with good instruction,
through revolution, but is by nature an evolutionary process.
(p. 18).

Driver and Erickson (1983) stated that the results of the studies they re-
viewed on cognitive conflict were generally mixed. They concluded that
while there did appear to be genuine shifts in some aspects of students’
frameworks, there was also evidence of a number of student ideas which
remained resistant to this type of instructional strategy.

Prior studies have usually furnished static pictures of student con-
ceptions prior to and/or following instruction. In order to better understand
what happens as students change their conceptions during instruction, it
is necessary to study the process as it actually unfolds in the classroom
during the course of instruction. While it is crucial to identify the range of
alternative conceptions of different phenomena likely to be held by students,
it is important to identify and address students’ metaphysical commit-
ments which are often implicit but serve to anchor different alternative
conceptions.

Researchlaradim

The discussion of the research paradigm will consist of two sections

which provide a view of the theory of knowledge and the principles of re-

search which guided the design and implementation of this research.

E'I 1.”: 1|.

The following will consist of four subsections detailing the principles
of knowledge which guided the conduct of this research. Each section
delves into an important aspect concerning the growth of knowledge in
terms of cognitive processes, conceptual change, or inferential reasoning.

WW3. Science is the result of human action in
the process of creative imagination in an effort to impose order on nature; to
find patterns in nature. Scientific knowledge which results from the appli-
cation of scientific processes by the various specialized sciences contributes
to an overall conceptual scheme which is internally consistent. The forma-
tion of a theory within this conceptual scheme does not, as Kaplan (1964)
argues, involve just the discovery of a hidden fact; the theory provides a
framework within which to organize and represent them. The realization
that facts are theory laden is related to our comprehension that without
some form of structure observations and description would be
unintelligible. The knowledge itself is formulated by and from the funda-
mental concepts which are pervasive throughout the various specialized
sciences and are, in effect, a product of the culture.

This has been elaborated by Pratt (197 8) with his indication that indi-
viduals grasp the world through their conceptual apparatus, a theoretical
framework which represents the categories through which their experi-
ence is gained. Without this a prior conceptual framework experience
would not be intelligible nor distinctions possible. An individuals system of
concepts imposes categories, divides experience into discrete items between
which relationships become possible.

Theory guides the search for data and the systematic patterns en-

compassing the data. Theories are not, as Kaplan (1964) indicates,

accessories after the fact, on the contrary, they function throughout
inquiry. Since human evolution involves thoughtful action whereby all
human conceptualization depends on our recognizing or putting some kind
of order into the world through scientific exploration, science can be viewed
as an activity of human life.

Scientific theories provide an organized and systematized framework
of data based upon experimentation by which the seeking of knowledge of
natural phenomena can become meaningful. Nuniluoto and Tuomela
(1973) contend that science looks for general patterns and regularities con-
cerning a reality which exists independently of observers. This reality is
knowable by means of scientific theorizing and experimentation aimed at
the systematization of data rather thanthe mere collection of singular data.

This construction of reality whereby natural phenomena become
meaningful does not involve an accumulation of knowledge, but an evolu-
tion or growth of knowledge. Popper (1965) argues that continued growth is
essential to the rational and empirical character of scientific knowledge.
This ‘growth’ of scientific knowledge involves the repeated replacement of
scientific theories by better or more satisfactory theories. Moreover, this
process involves the apprehension of problems of ever increasing depth
whereby scientific progress proceeds from problems to problems. The
awareness of a problem challenges us to learn, to observe, to experiment,
and to advance our knowledge.

Thus scientific knowledge is in a continuous state of change. It is
tentative and therefore does not purport to be ‘truth’ in an absolute and final
sense. Science as a body of knowledge concerned with the explanation of
natural phenomena is dynamic and when confronted with unexpected

observations must, as Kuhn (1977) pointed out, “always do more research in

order to further articulate its theory in the area that has just become
problematic.” In most cases, scientific exploration provides information for
the refinement or readustment of various aspects of a conceptual structure.
Occasionally, major scientific revolutions, during which time the normal-
scientific tradition changes and there is a re-education of the scientific
community’s perception of its environment, result in the alteration of entire

fields of science. Kuhn explicates this process when he states:

Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly, i.e.,
with the recognition that nature has somehow violated the
paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science. It
then continues with a more or less extended exploration of the
area of anomaly. And it closes only when the paradigm theory
has been adjusted so that the anomalous has become the ex—
pected. (Kuhn, 1979, p. 52)

An understanding of the nature of science involves an awareness of science
as an evolving experimental discipline whose basic principles are subject to
reconsideration and revision when new observations or new interpretations
reveal that the present framework is inadequate. Thus, to better under-
stand science and therefore to more realistically be involved in the process
of science, one must comprehend the process of conceptual change.
Wm. While theory construction involves selecting
from the materials of experience, Kaplan ( 1964) argues that it also involves
a conceptual aspect whereby the selected materials form the foundation for
the formulation of a conceptual matrix with no counterpart in experience at
all. The background conceptual matrix is not merely reorganized, for
knowledge does not grow by accretion nor merely by the replacement of du-
bious with more sound ones, but by the giving of new meaning through the

remaking of the old cognitive matrix into the substance of a new theory.

37

The growth of scientific knowledge through theory construction in-
volves a change in the conceptual matrix. It can be characterized as
involving a conceptual change from the conceptual matrix Q1 to the less
limited Q2. This adoption of Q2 in place of Q1 means that the world can be
described in a more profound and specific fashion such that information
not expressible without the theoretical concepts of Q2 can now be processed.
Werner (1957) clarifies this process of change from Q1 to Q2 when he states
that:

Whenever development occurs it proceeds from a state of rela-
tive globality and lack of differentiation to a state of increasing
differentiation, articulation, and hierarchic order.

This new conceptual matrix is less limited in its ability to describe and ex-
plain phenomena in that it provides the educational community with
greater ability to make distinctions and seek out patterns. This process
goes beyond mere linguistic enrichment, it involves new meaning.

With such a characterization of theory construction as conceptual
change we can visualize a process whereby Q1 (i.e., the input) is channeled
through the system and results in modification of its existing parameters,
eventually resulting in Q2 as output. This description interrelates an in-
ternal state description with a functional analysis of the input-output.
Laszlo (1973) points out that describing conceptual change as a process in-
terrelating a system and its structural-dynamic structure with inputs and
outputs involves system-cybernetics. Instances of the system-cybernetic
process can be found in societal processes such as is evident in the conduct
of scientific inquiry, as well as in the area of cognitive processes.

The utilization of cognitive processes during the course of scientific

inquiry involving a change from one conceptual matrix to another entails

38

not only scientifically observable objective events, but also events which can
only be examined by introspection and which make up the direct and inter-
nally demonstrative experience of each of us. Laszlo (197 2) indicates that
these internal sets of events may be denoted mental events and that the sys-
tem of mind events can be characterized as a cognitive system explorable
through the concept of system cybernetics. It can thus be concluded that
since introspection is required for the change from Q1 to Q2, mental events
are necessary for the process of conceptual change to proceed.

Adaptation to environmental disturbances, which results in a con-
ceptual change, involves the reorganization of the existing conceptual ma-
trix to fit the actual flow of sensory experience. It is a process which in-
volves learning. Confronted by a problematic situation the cognitive system
must change if it is to learn and thus attain a higher level of cognitive
functioning. Laszlo (1972) argues that the “adaptation of the cognitive sys-
tem to its environment can only come about through the elaboration of new
constructs which match the anomalous experiences and hence endow
them with meaning” (p. 129). Any process which results in learning ne-
cessitates the attainment of an adequate symbolization of the significant re-
lations in the perceived and inferred states of the systems environment
through a reorganization and elaboration of the cognitive system.

The process of adaptive self-organization is an aspect of a cognitive
system which conduces it toward states of higher negative entropy. It is
when the system is in a state of progressive organization that the entropy of
the system actually decreases (cf., Laszlo, 1972). Moreover, when there is a
decrease of entropy the cognitive system gathers information. A cognitive
system is thus a dynamic ordered whole, which evolves toward increas-

ingly informed states. An important aspect about conceptual change and

growth in relation to scientific inferences is that as suggested by Nuniluoto

and Tuomela (1973), they provide expanded potentialities for the expression
' and processing of information which was not expressible within the origi-
nal conceptual framework. Thus, it is necessary for conceptual change
and the resultant growth of scientific knowledge that the information
content increase.

WWW. It can thus be argued that cog-
nitive systems are information-processing systems, and therefore we can
apply the concept of information to mental systems. The conceptualization
of an information-processing system involves the formulation of an abstract
model having applicability for the description of how an individual, or in
our case the scientific community, processes what Newell and Simon (197 2)
have referred to as “task-oriented symbolic information” (p. 5). In this case
the task is that of the educational community to explain complex
psychological phenomena. The information-processing approach to the
investigation of a cognitive system utilizes postulated processes or opera-
tions and interdependent capabilities of the system to assist in the explana-
tion of the processes by which judgements are made and problems resolved
within a task environment. The concept of a ‘task environment’ has been
elaborated by Newel and Simon (1972), and refers to an environment which
is goal-oriented in the sense that there exists a task or problem to be
encountered.

Observations provide information, and Hilpinen (1970) suggests that
scientists make observations because it is an assumption that they provide
information concerning hypotheses in question, and because an aim of in-
quiry is to obtain information. Yet the singular action of observation is lim-

ited in its potential. Kaplan (1964) argues that the content of our experience

is not merely a succession of discrete observations, but consists of a se-
quence of events which are meaningful both in themselves and in the pat-
terns of their occurrence.

Conceptual change and the associated growth in scientific knowledge
can be viewed as involving a change in belief. It can then be argued that
semantic information is involved in conceptual change since, as suggested
by Jamison (1970), change in belief is the most philosophically relevant no-
tion of semantic information, since the definition of semantic information
is based upon the concept of information as a change in belief. Therefore,
the process governing scientific inferences may be viewed as involving the
acquisition of semantic information.

Laszlo (1972) elaborates upon the association between semantic in-
formation and the growth of knowledge when he submits that the question
is whether the reorganization of a conceptual matrix in a cogntive system
involves an overall statistical gain in information content. The supposition
is that as a social psychological system the scientific process has a gain in
information content when Q2 is greater than Q1. This gain in information
content is associated with a gain in the level of organizaton as a result of the
reorganization of the basic structural parameters of the system.

Within the interpretive framework which involves a semantic repre-
sentation of natural phenomena, our fundamental interest is directed to-
ward delineating the different alternative representation of the natural
phenomena in question. The more of these alternatives a semantic repre-
sentation admits of, the more probable it is; while the more alternatives a
semantic representation excludes, the more informative it is.

Since a cognitive system must gain information content to remain vi-

able when interacting with the environment our interest is thus drawn

41

toward representations which restrict the potential alternatives. It is in
this context that we must explore the process of scientific inference and the
resultant growth in knowledge. We have determined that the growth of
scientific knowledge involves conceptual change through the use of mental
events which occur within a cognitive system involving the process of in-
formation transfer. Thus, the important factor in the growth of knowledge
through inferential reasoning is the information content of our representa-
tion of the world.

1W. The exploration of the dynamics of the
growth of knowledge effectuated an awareness of the significance of
conceptual change for the continued evolution of knowledge and the impor-
tance of information content for the change from Q1 to Q2. Conceptual
change, as the principle means of the evolution of knowledge, necessitates a
less limited notion of theory appraisal than reduction of uncertainty (cf.,
Salmon (1966)), or hypothesis testing (cf., Hacking (1965)). The reduction of
uncertainty does not adequately model our search for reality since, as
Jamison (1970) suggests, reality is far too rich and varied to be adequately
reflected in a logical theory of probability involving the degree of
confirmation. These deficient approaches are each founded upon an aspect
of what Hanna (1980) refers to as the false dilemma. These views involve on
the one hand the belief that inferential reasoning must be based upon de-
ductive arguments resulting in certain truth or upon inductive arguments

resulting in probable truth. Pratt (197 8) argues that:

.. it is impossible to get outside all conceptual schemes, im-
possible to describe reality as she “really is”, and thus impossi-
ble to achieve a position from which the truth of any claim
made within a conceptual framework may be “externally”
assessed. (p. 58)

Thus, there will be difficulties with any attempt to show a theory to be true.
Hanna (1980) argues that while informative theories are not necessarily
true, neither are true theories necessarily informative. Thus, there will be
difficulties with any attempt to show a theory to be true.

We will therefore reject the support paradigm and will attempt to
show that since information is an important aspect of all cognitive system’s
it is the parameter of interest for appraising scientific theories. Moreover,
it will be recognized that showing a theory to be false is immensely more ef-
fective in the appraisal of theories. Pratt (1978) submits that the aim of so-
cial science should be to use its observations to dispose of theories as op-
posed to the traditional methodology of trying to arrive at theories on the ba-
sis of an inductive inference from observations.

This emphasis upon falsification is a consequence of the quest for ev-
idence with high information content. Popper (1968) argues that while we
can not verify or confirm hypotheses, the most informative new observa-
tions will be those which falsify the previously preferred generalization.
With this view of the scientific enterprise, Hanna (1980) submits that the
intent of inferential inquiry is to discover evidence and formulate theories
which increase our information about natural or sociological phenomena.
Popper (1968) suggests that the greater the amount of empirical informa-
tion or content‘a theory contains the greater the predictive or explanatory
power will be; and as a more highly informative theory, it can thus be more
severly tested as a result of the comparison of predicted facts with
observations. Thus, in this view, an important aim of the inquiry process is
to formulate theories with a high degree of falsifiability, or testability.
Hanna (1980) emphasizes that with increases in the degree of falsifiability

there are increases in the quantity of empirical information transmitted by

a theory. Thus, the information paradigm which is being proposed for the
appraisal of theories has as its foundation the determination of the amount
of actual or potential information a theory provides regarding the relevant
empirical observations of natural phenomena relative to background
knowledge or competing hypotheses.

Within this information-theoretical framework, we can assess the
explanatory power of theories (i.e., conceptions put forth by the scientific
enterprise, student conceptions of scientific phenomena) stated in the lan-
guage Q2 with respect to the theoretical concepts and observational gener-
alizations in Q1 (cf., Hanna, 1980). If, however, the information content of a
composite hypothesis is obtained from the data which is to be explained
then that information does not have any explanatory value.

In this regard, it is the scope and precision of a theory’s predictions
that provide a measure of its testability. Whereas, Hanna (1969) suggests
that:

the essential characteristic of description, as opposed to ex-
planation or prediction, is that a substantial portion of the in-
formation required for the account is transmitted by the data,
rather than by independent environmental factors. (p. 321)

In the educational setting it may be more appropriate, especially in case
studies, to begin with the formulation of descriptive theories before one at-
tempts to develop theories with predictive, or explanatory power. It would
thus be more appropriate to look at particular research data as having a
measure of descriptive power (cf., Hanna, 1980). Thus, with experimental
arrangements which cannot lead to explanatory or predictive theories the

most which can be expected is a descriptive representation of phenomena.

11 ll 1 l . l E 1 |°

This section will provide insights into the various aspects of the
methodological foundation within which this study was conducted. These
include the assumptions and guiding principles concerning research on
teaching, and the potential for generalizaton from the observed patterns of
conceptual change.

It has been argued (Hanson, 1958; Toulmin, 1961; Kuhn, 1962) that
scientific theories are radically underdetermined by experience and that
although scientific theories must be testable by experience, they need not
arise merely out of experience. They contend that what even counts as ex-
perience is necessarily theory dependent. Petrie (1972) suggests that expe-
rience can not be described independently of theory since a neutral observa-
tion language does not exist. The direction whereby the influence of theory
upon observation is ignored has resulted from the inability of the function-
alists to see that some empirical results have the significance they do be-
cause of the observational categories and theory in which they are
embedded.

It is thus evident that some form of holistic philosophically con-
firmable foundation must provide a guide to observational methodology and
inferences. Dunkel (1972) asserts that “some kind of normative base must
be found if education is to be more than a mindless technology, ...” (p. 93).
The distinction formulated by Kant (1787/1965) between judgements that are
arrived at synthetically rather than analytically is instructive. He argued
that the synthetic judgement process is expansive whereas the analytic is
simply explicative. Utilizing this argument as an aspect of his contention
for an increased emphasis upon the constructivist approach in educational

research, Magoon (1977) points out that “man mostly comes to know his

world by actively constucting it, and not so much by the passive reception of
inputs” (p. 657). It seems clear then that some form of inferential
reasoning is necessary in order to pursue a more complete understanding
of concept formation.

32W- It is possible to distinguish five facets of re-
search on teaching which can be further characterized as quantitative, or
qualitative. The quantitative approaches (i.e., Process-Product, Carrol
Model and Aptitude-Interaction) to research on teaching share a number of
guiding assumptions. The major assumption is that any relationships be-
tween teacher behavior and student achievement is law-governed.
Secondly, an emphasis is placed upon only the observable behavior of the
teacher. However, the qualitative approaches (i.e., Ethnographic and
Teacher Thinking) are guided by the assumption that the teaching-learn-
ing process is rule-govemed as opposed to law-governed.

It has been argued (Lott, 1981) that the application of the quantitative
approaches to research on teaching have lead to limitation in the practical
application of their findings. It follows from these perceived limitations
that the research being described has its foundation in the qualitative ap-
proach to research on teaching. However, while this research is based
upon the guiding assumptions of the qualitative approaches, it acknowl-
edges the importance of several propositions which are found in the quanti-
tative approaches.

An important relational consideration is that between process and
product variables. The process variables are seen as interactive variables,
between teacher classroom behavior and pupil classroom behavior. These
process variables influence changes in pupil behavior, which result in the

product variables of pupil growth. The modification of the Carroll model by

Bloom (1974) introduced the concept of prerequisite learning and the need
for a student to master the necessary skills before encountering the next
task to be learned. The importance of cognitive entry characteristics has
recently been reemphasized by Bloom (1980) with his contention that “much
of the variation in school learning is directly determined by the variation in
students’ cognitive entry characteristics” (p. 383). This is also in agreement
with the Aptitude-Treatment Interaction (ATI) approach whose key char-
acteristic is the concern for the interaction between the individual and the
treatment, or environmental factors. Aptitude X Treatment interactions
are defined by Cronbach and Snow (1977) as being present “when a situation
has one effect on one kind of person and a different effect on another” (p. 3).
They then go on to suggest that aptitude measures and educational meth-
ods should form a mutually supporting system.

The limitations of quantitative-oriented research apprehended by
some researchers has lead to the utilization of different approaches to
research on teaching. These qualitative approaches make the assumption
that teachers and students are purposive agents whose thoughts influence
their behavior (cf., Magoon, 1977; Johnson, Rhodes & Rumery, 1975).

Ethnographic research is based upon several assumptions regarding
the educational process. First among these is that an important source of
explanation for classroom phenomena is the social context in which teach-
ing and learning occur. The members of the observed situation are re-
garded as knowledgeable beings whose behavior is purposeful and mean-
ingful in this context. Magoon (1977) contends that the teacher and stu-
dents are “purposive agents whose thoughts, plans, perceptions, and inten-

tions influence their behavior and moderate the effects of behavior” (p. 652).

47

The key characteristic of the Teacher Thinking model of teaching is
that the teacher is a rational and intelligent individual faced with a very
complex situation. Clark and Yinger (1979) point out that the research fo-
cus should be the mental processes underlying behavior whereby an em-
phasis is placed upon attempting to understand teachers’ judgement and
decision making. An important aspect of this approach is its acknowledg-
ment that the teaching environment involves complex interdependencies
between behavior and environment (Y inger, 1978).

As a qualitative-oriented study the research being conducted is at-
tempting to look at the interaction of process and product variables and
aptitude-treatment interactions in a new light. The methodological tech-
niques will, it is hoped, provide a more unified approach to research on
teaching. The questions of interest are “What is the relationship between a
teachers’ interactive decision making and the patterns of conceptual
change?” “What are the relationships between environmental factors and
the patterns of conceptual change?” “What is the relationship between stu-
dents’ prior knowledge and the patterns of conceptual change?”

It is important to note that the types of thought processes exhibited in
classrooms appear to be very dependent upon the nature of the cognitive
task focused upon. Research must take into consideration the importance
of the environmental factors influencing instruction (cf., Weinstein, 1979),
and the process of social interaction (cf., Piaget, 1971).

Interaction, the key concept in the ATI approach, has been described
as behavior being a fimction of the individual and the environment (i.e., of
the aptitude and the treatment). However, this ignores the reciprocal na-
ture of interaction in which the three entities of behavior, the individual,

and the environment, are each affected by the other two in a continuous,

simultaneous and sequential manner. The treatment may itself be altered
by the individual, and includes the social context of instruction.

The two scientific disciplines referred to by Cronbach (1957) answer
formal quantitative questions. What is needed to extend the paradigm and
provide descriptive data for further research is systematic inquiry relying
upon naturalistic and qualitative approaches to research.

Generalizability. The question of generalizability need not, however,
be a point of contention. Eisner (1981) suggests that the belief that the gen-
eral resides in the particular provides a framework within which general-
ization is possible. Qualitative research and the inferential process aimed
at formulating conjectures attempts to provide insights that exceed the lim-
its of the unique parameters of time and space within the situation in
which they emerge. The researcher believes that the particular has a con-
tribution to make to the comprehension of what is general and thus he is
interested in making the particular vivid so that its qualities can be
experienced.

I] I' l E l I'

The utilization of a model as an organizing framework implies an
inherent way of thinking about the phenomena under study and as such
places limits upon the kinds of research questions asked, the methods of
inquiry employed, and the rules of evidence used to analyze and interpret
data. The research program being described has a theoretical framework
concerning learning, teaching, and the milieu of the educational setting.

I B |° _ .

It is argued that cognitive systems are information-processing

systems, and therefore we can apply the concept of information to mental

systems. This study of the teaching and learning process is thus founded

49

upon the information-processing theoretical framework within which the
teacher is viewed as an information processing decision maker (Shulman
& Elstein, 1975) who provides a task environment intended to promote intel-
lectual development, and the participants are viewed as goal-oriented
information-processors and decision makers (Smith & Berkheimer, 1977)
who utilize the internal capabilities of problem' solving and thinking
(Gagne, 1977).

The conceptualization of an information-processing system involves
the formulation of an abstract model having applicability for the description
of how an individual processes what Newell and Simon (197 2) have referred
to as “task-oriented symbolic information” (p. 5). The information-process-
ing approach to the investigation of a cognitive system utilizes postulated
processes or operations and interdependent capabilities of the system to as-
sist in the explanation of the processes by which judgements are made and
problems resolved within a task environment.

Researchers using the information processing approach to study
learning view learning as conceptual change involving some analysis and
transformation of what has occurred through the encounter with the task
environment. The basis for this important theoretical development has
evolved in conjunction with the assumption of structural complexity
(Piaget, 1971; Laszlo, 1972) whereby the human organism can be viewed as
a complex adaptive open system. The information processing approach
utilizes postulated organismic processes or operations (i.e., the processes
and operations used by the human organism to interpret and manipulate
information) and interdependent capabilities to assist in the explanation of

human thought. An important aspect of this approach is the identification

of the processes and strategies the human organism uses in a particular
task environment.

Gagne’s intent has been to seek a broader degree of generality than
the “‘simple’ prototypes of learning?” (1977, p. 74) utilized by experimental
psychology and to account for the processes and phases of learning in addi-
tion to the capabilities produced by learning. His theoretical formulation,
which is founded upon the research concerned with internal processes, has
assisted in providing a viable hypothesis for the analysis of the conceptual
requirements for learning and the design of instruction.

An integral aspect of this conceptualization of learning is the occa-
sioning of a problematic situation. That is, the provision of an educational
situation whereby elements of the subject matter selected by the teacher,
when juxtaposed with the student’s present conceptual framework, will
result in a conceptual incongruity. The importance of conceptual incon-
gruity occasioned through a problematic situation has been explicated by
Piaget (1960) and Berlyne (1965). It is through the resolution of these prob-
lematic situations by means of problem solving processes that the concep-
tual framework becomes more differentiated and a new level of cognitive
functioning is achieved.

Case (1975) recommends that the design of instruction take into con-
sideration the child’s information-processing limitations such that the in-
dividual can cope with the informational demands of the learning
situation. Thus, the generation of learning experiences would involve not
only an analysis of component skills but also their functional organization.
He contends that the “assembly of lower-order skills into higher-order skills
is presumed to be possible only if the child’s capacity for coordinating in-

formation is not overtaxed” (1978, p. 457). The framework for the

51

"developmental approach" and its effectiveness were evaluated through the
analysis of the extent to which material which was taught was retained
over an extended period of time. The results of the investigation were sup-
portive in that for one example eighty percent of those who were involved in
the developmentally based curriculum formulated by Case showed a degree
of mastery attained by only twenty percent of those who did not have the de-
velopmental approach. Other studies which were sighted also supported
the value of this approach to some extent.

Wage

Conceptual change involves a change in the conceptual framework of
the student through the action of internal mental capabilities during in-
volvement in learning tasks. It is a process by which an individual com-
prehends a problematic situation within the task environment. The intel-
lectual participation required on the part of the student involves requisite
operations and conditions in terms of abstract structures (i.e., conceptual
framework) and identifiable actions (i.e., cognitive strategies) within situa-
tional constraints (i.e., task environment).

A characteristic of conceptual change is that the subject must elabo-
rate or transform the current conceptual framework to reconcile internal
discrepancies. An emphasis is placed upon the interaction between the
subject’s internal processing of information and the encounter with the
environment. It considers the environmental context as well as the inten-
tions of the teacher and student to be important factors in the reconciliation
of internal conceptual conflicts. It is within this context that Posner,
Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) argue that “a new conception is unlikely

to displace an old one, unless the old one encounters difficulties, and a new

52

intelligible and initially plausible conception is available that resolves these
difficulties” (p. 220).

The model of ‘teaching’ which results from the adoption of this model
of conceptual change requires more of the teacher than simply the
occasioning and structuring of content. Moreover, the student is required
to go beyond the apprehension of the information content and its integration
into the conceptual framework and must produce a way to deal with the in-
congruous situation. The model accepts the constructivist philosphy as
suggested by Magoon (1977) where the teacher and students are seen as
“purposive agents whose thoughts, plans, perceptions, and intentions in-
fluence their behavior and moderate the effects of behavior” (p. 652).
Student and teacher interaction is further influenced by communication
difficulties brought about by the use of different interpretive frames by the
teacher and student (Driver and Easley, 1978). Unlike the first model (i.e.,
Process-Product) which places much responsibility upon the teacher and
the Carrol Model which places emphasis upon the subjects participation
(i.e., time on task), this model recognizes the mutual accountability of each.

Based upon the model, changes in conceptual framework will be in-
fluenced by the interaction of environmental factors such as teacher and
student acts within the framework provided by the learning experiences
and the internal reconciliation processes of the student. This will have be-
gun with the teacher occasioning a discussion directed at having the stu-
dents’ interpret the evidence gained from their classroom experiences. The
patterns thus exposed are used to influence the subjects to justify their cur-
rent conceptions in the light of the encountered evidence and where neces-
sary reconcile concflicting conceptions. It is this episode in the instruc-

tional sequence which will make public the alternative frameworks used by

the students in response to what N ussbaum and Novick (1982) refer to as an
“exposing event” (p. 4). The teacher’s skillful probes using student alterna-
tive frameworks along with empirical and theoretical evidence leads to the
subject restructuring his/her interpretive framework.

Analyzing the patterns of conceptual change can lead to an under-
standing of the relationships between the task environment, concept
formation, and the process of conceptual change. Individuals have differ-
ent conceptions of subject matter and apprehend curricular tasks in vari-
ous ways. It is through an understanding of the patterns of conceptual
change that appropriate learning experiences can be selected and occa-
sioned in an effort to support or enhance the development of conceptual
frameworks.

I l . -I . E

Teaching will be viewed as an intentional and systematic activity. It
is intentional in that some change toward a specified end on the part of the
student is contemplated. It is systematic in that direct attention is given to
a set of actions, within a specified structure and situational context, which
intervenes between tasks of the teacher and tasks of the student. Teaching
and learning may also be looked upon as a form of linguistic activity.
Dunkin and Biddle (1974) point out that the analysis of teaching as a form of
linguistic activity is not familiar to many educators, although the symbols
with which the exchange of ideas in an educational setting are conveyed
helps clarify meaning.

In this study the teaching and learning process will be viewed as in-
volving systematic and linguistic events, and the research interest will thus
be to examine patterns of linguistic events. Influenced by the view that

“systematic structures and processes underlie language use” (Slobin, 1979,

p. 6), the approach will involve the examination of the discourse as a result
of field observations. Dunkin and Biddle (1974) have pointed out that lin-
guists have begun, through the study of semantics involving the relation-
ship between language form, users, and meaning, to generate valuable
concepts for the analysis of classroom discourse.

The belief, upon which this study is based, is that once the proposi-
tions that appear in the sentences of speakers are clearly represented the
structure of their ideational exchange should become clear. However, the
syntax, or system of linguistic structure, is only one aspect of a linguistic
event. Thus, the current study will not only utilize syntactical structure,
but also semantics in an attempt to determine the meaning of the
discourse, since “the semantic system of language forms the interface be-
tween language and thought” (Foss and Hakes, 1978, p. 48). Therefore, the
appropriate approach is viewed to be the development of observational tech-
niques based upon linguistic analysis.

E l] l i l E . . 1

In addition to reviewing the previous research which provided
background for this study, this chapter has explored the theoretical and
methodological assumptions which guided the design and interpretation of
this research. The nature of scientific knowledge, conceptual change and
cognitive systems was reviewed owing to the belief that there are parallels
between the nature of the growth of scientific knowledge and student
learning (i.e., growth of knowledge). The review of the theory of knowledge
and principles of research which guided the design and implementation of
this research was incorporated in an effort to provide the reader with in-
sights concerning the view of the world which influenced the design of data

collection procedures and the conduct of the analysis process.

The parallel between social (e.g., scientific community) and intel-
lectual changes has been suggested by Toulmin (197 2) who states that like
the institution of science, individuals “change by selective innovation in
response to changing situations, in the name of collective social goals, and
in this, too, they diSplay an unremarked parallel to concepts and conceptual
evolution” (p. 353). In the educational setting it is asserted that knowledge
(i.e., concepts) is a product of the culture of the classroom. Just as with the
scientific community, individuals grasp the world through their conceptual
apparatus, a theoretical framework which represents the categories
through which their experiences are gained. The growth of knowledge (for
an individual, for a community of scientists) leads to the ‘giving of new
meaning,’ however, the background conceptual matrix is not merely
reorganized, the existing conceptual matrix is changed to fit the actual flow
of sensory experience.

The review in this chapter of such topics as the nature of inferential
reasoning and conceptual change was meant to give the reader a perspec-
tive of the principles which guided the design and interpretation of this
research. The reasoning reviewed in those sections suggests that the
formation of a theory (e.g., a theory of conceptual change) does not involve
just the discovery of hidden facts; it involves the search for general patterns
and regularities concerning a reality (i.e., the utilization of cognitive pro-
cesses by an individual during the course of scientific inquiry in an educa-
tional setting) which exists independently of observers (e.g., the
researcher). This reality is not knowable by means of the mere collection of
singular data; it entails not only scientifically observable objective events,
but also events which can only be examined by introspection and which

make up the direct and internally demonstrative experience of each

individual. Thus, to get at the patterns and regularities inherent in events
only examined by introspection, observational techniques and clinical in-
terviews must be used in a unified data collection system.

The material discussed regarding the epistemological, methodolog-
ical and theoretical foundations provided an organizing framework which
guided the development of the observational methodology and the making of
inferences. The value in considering the arguments concerning research
on teaching and cognitive systems as information-processing systems, has
been that potentially useful questions that might not otherwise have been
asked were perceived and played a guiding role when observing events, or
analyzing data. The arguments revealed in this chapter were intended to
make it clear that the design of the methodology and the conduct of the re-
search was guided by the assumption that the teaching-learning process is
rule-governed and that teachers and students are purposive agents whose
thoughts influence their behavior.

It seemed clear that there must be an acknowledgement that the
teaching environment involves complex interdependencies between be-
havior and environment and that an important source of explanation for
classroom phenomena is the social context in which teaching and learning
occur. Moreover, the arguments in these sections have suggested that the
important factor in formulating a methodology which would lead to the
growth of knowledge through inferential reasoning (i.e., give researchers
the capability to gain new insights into the process of conceptual change) is
the information content of our representation of the world. Thus, it was felt
that there must be a more unified approach to the research and that it
should take into consideration the importance of the environmental factors

influencing istruction and the nature of the cognitive tasks.

CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURES

The intent of this chapter is to provide a view of the environment in
which data collection occurred, and the procedures and techniques used.
In addition, the techniques used to interpret and analyze the data once or-
ganized will be discussed.

W

The purpose of this section is to describe the context within which the
study was conducted and the procedures for data collection and
organization. The function of the data collection methodology was to pro-
vide sufficient information from which changes in a student’s inferred
conceptual framework could be identified. It is important that the data be
complete and organized for efficient and effective analysis. The case study,
group data and target student data must provide an adequate and accessi-
ble data source for conceptual change analysis.

Qantaxt

The context in which this study was conducted included an instruc-
tional unit, the subjects who experienced the instruction, the teacher who
guided the instruction, and the school and community in which the in-
struction occurred.

I | l' I II 'I

The curricular unit which provided the instructional context for this
study was the “Producers” unit of SCIIS Communites as revised by Smith,
Anderson, and Berkheimer (1981). The revised teacher’s guide was de-
signed to make the conceptual change aspects of the instruction more ex-

plicit than they had been in the original SCIIS guide.

The literal program had many features which were designed to help
bring about changes in students conceptions. This involved student partic-
ipation in experimental set-ups and corresponding key questions which
were intended to guide the observation and interpretation of phenomena.
The strategy referred to is represented in Table 1.

The unit begins with the student’s dissecting bean seeds and
examining the contents. They learn that there are parts to a seed; the
cotyledon and the embryo. The question is raised “What do these parts do as
the plant grows?” This leads to the set-up of an experiment where the stu-
dents germinate bean seed parts (embryo, cotyledon, embryo with one
cotyledon, and whole seed). From their observations they would observe
that the embryo is the part of the seed that grows into the new plant. They
also observe that whole seeds and embryo’s with one cotyledon attached
usually grow while separate embryos and separate cotyledons do not.

The next chapter in the unit explores the question “Do plants need
light to grow?” Students grow grass in the light and in the dark. It is dur-
ing the experiments in this chapter that the students would observe a num-
ber of events which were intended to be difficult to explain if they held the
common misconception that soil is a source of food for plants. They would
see grass seed sprout and begin to grow in the dark, then generally wither
and die. The intended explanation to result from this observation is that it
occurs because the food stored in the cotyledon runs out. This leads to the
“invention,” by the teacher, of the concept of photosynthesis which is in-
tended to explain the observations better than the idea that plants get their
food from the soil.

The final chapter in this unit provides an opportunity for the students

to observe the growth of bean seeds under four different conditions: in the

...mooc 60$

05 .3 fan :98

does—.38 a 8 «2:5 so» on an;

3533 5:3 2:9 Sea—n ~39.» can 923%
35 9396—. moi—2E0 :aom 3.8a poem as; .m

Saga

«San—q MERE» «5
.8» on coco—.38 can
eras—o «5 ca .355 .m

3:32.38 95 3:3

39:3 .892 2.5 ecu {macro—.38.. 98 32.3 .898— 93 2:2:
PCAEo 2: 3:3 fan 3:. 822— 2.3 .2: rah—£80.. 2.: mm :5 tan 3:353 «£33m
Ace—n £25 a 26; «comm mm 9.3 3:35... :25 2.8 :25. a 96; £33 zoom 355 mm 223 A
333%

2&0 MES—cog 05 .3 393 .8398.qu .

 

3233.80 302 25:35 cosaEuéc— @358...“— mfiaom Bur—ESQ 533:0 «589:.—

gm
mag—232200 m=0m hO c . m mans—<30 m2 >GME<mEm mm? .mO >m<223m

 

 

g 34:9

.395 3 Eng
3 3m: :8: 3: o: 355

.2»: 5 as. is.
05 :m 395 3 "Emma: 39.0

35%;

6.33:5

on» :8 too» 333.5
5:338 25 dog—boo
: 3 3:83: am 3.:

35 22: a 35 3326:
933:5 95. .33: >5: :
35 mac—gov 905:8 25.

3323:3333

2:3
«.1033 0333

E: 3.3... 523

2.25 cm
uEBfiu .12. 2: :_
3:2: 2: v.8 .33

«:25» 5.3.65 3
2m: :8: 3:2: on

3:2.— 05
:8 a: Eco—38 c5:

903:8 05 a: 3:3

«0:2: 398
oak—:5 .8 5.5—.38
«5 9:2. 23

2.05% :2—3 oz—
obnfio .5: :35—
-.38 c5 3.. a;

 

23.3350 302 3.535 55:55.:— c3:omo.& 3.:QO 135.55

 

533:3 mfifiaum

 

335m

mag—232200 mZUm mo m - m. MEET—U £2 >¢m9§9m mm; .mO >m<223m

2:253:25 — nag—<3

.32» 3 2.52.8
3 3M: woo: av Baa—m

Agog—.38 rod 233
.55 89c woe eon 3.35

1.81 2: E .8: an; In:
05 5 38M 3 3:538 395

 

$8 was 2: ..2. £8.
:2? 2,: 2m: 2: 5
035 ES 0:. {at 05
5 353 2a E. 23

$2.: .35 c8. 2:
8» 3:2.— cw 0.855

~22}:
he .12. 05 5 32m
323 2: 2. 23

~35:— 3..
3. Eu: 82. .225»

was a3 3a..» 05 3
3:23.:— 3: .225»

mic—Ea 53 39%

:35 05 v5 :8.» .

53 3a..» 25:0» 05
3.2: no» 2:8 25:

.mm

.3

.9

.ma

.3

.2 I

 

333350 >62 63:35

scans—~85 c353:—

338m iota—am

 

cannosc «ESP—h

 

Judaism

mag—232200 m=Um m0 m - m. mun—EEO mOh >0m8§9m m5. m0 >§§Dm

scans—83 u "Hum—<9

..co :8 can .0323 28v

-258 95 ..on {av E mars...»
2% 25. .2»: 5 22» 3 2:5
...8 33.238 55 3:23 can

15. 2: 5 2c 25 .22. 5 22»
32.258 .3253 3:29 anom—
. .mcomamu Sch
52an «333839.
:13. .23 3m: 05
5 zoom—.— macaw—.38
32.33 can fins 35:.
:3: 959a 3 conga;
=3 :25 a: 2. 2:5, .5

o—omo «£592.— 05 .3 $55 b.2685

«335533;.—
..__m can “39: mo 3.. 12¢ ...E can .833 89¢ toe SEE no 32 05 «En: 3.3
8—9: 3 in: on: 9:35 3 Eu: 89c .855 cm: flea—m .9— 2: £298 :9» .80 .3

0—26 mam—:93 2: .3 35..— 53:3:—

 

 

mcomaaoocoo 302 coop—3.: gang—£5 guacamoi 3.53m Eur—ESQ 5:250 «5895

3%

mag—232200 m=ow .mO m - m mar—x350 mop.— >0mfi<mfim m1? m0 55:423.,”

 

82.882 _ n39;

 

:2: 3:2.
:2: 8:2: 3 Em: woo: :3: 3:2.— 2. 5:3 Am
3:2: 6.8m mm cave—.38
23 59c v8: 05 3&4 San—a MES»
.35.:— ucnoa .3: v8.2 a .82 cc Soto—58
823.5 coco—38 25. :5 .35 no» on :55» .cm
:22. 2: 5 3.3.. 2:
E 395 «coco—38 as:
-53 5.33 E: =03 3o: .3
$53—33
3:55 .8 firs 3:2.—
223 32» 523 .m:
2323433
333350 3:2 36:35 song—.8»:— noacmmoi 3.3mm Eur—ESQ 53:25 9:522

 

 

gnaw

mars—232200 mZOm '20 c . M 22520 20% 2.03.525 are. 26 >G<EEDm

302558 — Eda—<9

light with and without cotyledons and in the dark with and without
cotyledons. The patterns of growth are consistent with the idea that plants
get food from the cotyledons or make it themselves in the light, but that they
do not get food from the soil.

21mm

The classroom in which the observations for this study were made
(twenty three lessons were observed over a ten week period) consisted of a
three room semi-open classroom format. It was thirty feet by thirty feet
with half of the rear of the classroom open to the adjacent classroom. This
open area was occupied by several objects which formed a divider between
the two classrooms. These objects consisted of a two-drawer file cabinet, the
teacher’s desk and a short three shelf .movable bookcase. The students sat
at hexagonal tables (each formed by putting two trapezoidal tables together)
scattered about the room with four to five students at each table.

The entrance to the classroom was in the front of the classroom at the
extreme left. Next to this entrance door was a door to the back room with
the remainder of the front wall taken up by a blackboard. One-third of the
left wall had a blackboard with the remainder taken up by a bulletin board.
A table was kept below the blackboard for the storage of the tubs containing
the science materials used by the students.

The outside wall of the classroom which adjoined the front wall was
mainly windows with the exception of a door towards the rear of the class-
room which opened to an expansive open area. All along this wall were
several large plants (e.g., a six foot Norfolk Pine) while near the rear door
and along the short (in length) wall in the rear of the classroom was a sink
and wall cabinets.

Subjects

This study utilized a population of 22 fifth grade children. The chil-
dren were of working class as well as professional parents with some (17%)
being from minority (e.g., Black, Oriental, Hispanic) families. Four stu-
dents from this group were selected, based upon their unique and inter-
esting pre-instruction conceptual frameworks, from this group for more
intensive study (e.g., focused observation and clinical interviews). This
target group worked together as one of the groups into which the class was
organized for science instruction.
Teacher

The teacher had nine years of experience in preschool through in-
termediate grades. She was responsible for the teaching of science to three
groups of fifth graders in a team-teaching situation. Her educational back-
ground included a Masters degree as well as one science course, one sci-
ence education course, and a half-day 8013 workshop. She had three years
of teaching experience with the SCIS/SCIIS program.
W

The classroom which was the focus of this study was in an elemen-
tary school with an enrollment of 320 students in grades K through 5. The
school was part of a school district which had a student population of 4,450
at the time the field work for this study was conducted. The school district
served a midwest suburban community having a population of 45,000 with
an above average socio-economic status. The major financial influence for
this multi-cultural metropolitan area was a major midwestem university.

Design
The design of this study took the form of case studies of a set of

changes in an individual student’s conceptions as he experienced

instruction in the target unit. The inferential description of changes in
student’s conceptual framework was accomplished through the use of
psychomodeling, observational, and clinical interview techniques to exam-
ine the patterns of conceptual change. These approaches to data collection
provided the necessary information to formulate sequential representations
of a conceptual framework, which were then in turn used to examine the
patterns of conceptual change. The curricular unit provided the task envi-
ronment for observation, the focal point for clinical interviews, and the
propositional knowledge for psychomodeling instrumentation.
D | Q l] |° I l .

This section is concerned with the development and implementation
of all data collection instruments and techniques.
W

As part of the Planning and Teaching Intermediate Science Study
(Smith & Anderson, 1984), a psychomodeling instrument was developed for
the “Producers” unit of Communities. The psychomodeling approach pro-
vided a general classroom view of student understanding of propositional
knowledge addressed as well as subsuming and correlative concepts, and
thus aided in the search for patterns based upon analysis of the target
students. The instrument was used to collect data (1) for determining an
individuals conceptual framework; and (2) for determining various concep-
tual frameworks within the classroom.

An important aspect of the development of this instrument was the
segmentation of the instructional unit in such detail that the propositional
knowledge addressed could be used to develop items. A literal program
analysis of the “Producers” unit resulted in the representation of the orga-

nization of instruction and the listing of the propositions provided in

Appendix A. A literal program analysis provides a characterization of the
propositional knowledge which would be addressed and student tasks
occasioned if the suggestions in the instructional materials are followed
literally.

This in turn was used to formulate items for the psychomodeling in-
strument which is provided in Appendix B. The observed task performance
on the open ended, multiple choice, and true-false items are viewed as re-
sulting from an application of an individual’s knowledge and thus as pro-
viding a basis for inferences about an individual’s underlying conceptual
framework. ‘

This paper and pencil test was based on elements identified in the lit-
eral program analysis to provide data for inferring an individual’s concep-
tual framework or the conceptions of a group. The cross referencing of
items on the test with specific propositional knowledge addressed provided
a framework for the analysis of individual student’s knowledge.

This aspect of the data collection included the administration of the
psychomodeling instrument prior to instruction as well as after. As a pre- .
test it was intended to provide information concerning the student’s un-
derstanding of the concepts to be addressed prior to instruction. Use as a
post-test involved a re-administration of the instrument used for the pre-
test. It was thus used to assess subject’s level of understanding of the goal
propositions. In addition, its analysis in conjunction with the pre-test pro-
vided a general view of patterns of conceptual change.

Qhacmmn

It is thought that conceptual change is influenced by the context

within which it occurs, thus a representation of the context was attempted

utilizing observational data. The application of observational methodology

provided a detailed representation of the milieu in which instruction
occurred. Classroom observation will provide an avenue for the description
of teacher acts (i.e., pedagogical activities) and student activities. This will
assist in the description of the sociological and psychological aspects of the
classroom (i.e., the situational context).

Schatzman and Strauss (1973) have argued that the researcher must
observe the context within which the process of interest occurs as the ac-

tions of the involved individuals:

are best comprehended when observed on the spot -- in the
natural, ongoing environment where they live and work. If
man creates at least some of the conditions for his own actions,
then it can be presumed that he acts in his own world, at the
very place and time that he is. The researcher himself must be
at the location, not only to watch but also to listen to the sym-
bolic sounds that characterize the world. (p. 5-6)

The application of observational methodology can provide an approach from
which the internal thought processes involved in teaching and learning
can be explored. Nuthall and Lawrence (1965) assert that “the most signifi-
cant contributions to the understanding of thinking in the classroom are
likely to result from the meeting of psychological theory and the
‘naturalistic’ study of the teacher with his class” (p. 52). The observation
and description involved in naturalistic studies of the classroom can expose
the ways in which the teacher and pupils interact thereby providing obser-
vational data through which a variety of patterns of thinking based upon a
normative conceptualization can be investigated. .

Within this context, observational techniques for a study of concep-
tual change were formulated and utilized for data collection in a classroom
setting as part of a preliminary developmental project (Lott, 1982a). The

naturalistic observation and description exposed the ways in which the

teacher and pupils interacted and thereby provided observational data
through which patterns of conceptual change could be investigated. It was
intended that the observational system provide a detailed representation of
the situational context in which instruction occurred. This was accom-
plished through the use of the following instruments based upon the
classroom observation.

The observation system consisted of three parts; observation notes fo-
cusing especially on the target group, audio tapes of group and class
behavior, and the use of video tape at selected points in the instructional
sequence. The observation notes were collected on the Classroom Observa-
tion Form which was completed during each lesson (see Appendix C). This
form was completed as the observer watched the classroom events which
made up the lesson. While providing some information concerning the
class as a whole, this form is directed primarily at collecting information
through observation relevant to the interactions of the target students.
These completed forms provided the basis for all further analysis.

Audio tape recordings of each lesson were used as a supplement to
classroom observation. Two tapes were made; the ‘classroom’ tapes con-
tained the verbal statements within the classroom while the ‘group’ tapes
provided a record of the statements made by the target students. The group
tapes were recorded using a directional microphone suspended directly
over their table.

Additional forms which were developed enabled the breakdown of in-
struction into student tasks and the preparation of a narrative description
for each task drawing on observation notes and tape recordings. A literal
program analysis (Sendelbach, 1980; Landes, Smith and Anderson, 1981), a

process for the analysis of elementary school science curriculum

materials, was the point of departure for these efforts. This analysis pro-
duces a detailed step-by-step account of what the classroom would be like if
the teacher followed the recommendations in the Teacher’s Guide
‘literally.’ ‘

Most instructional materials are divided into individual lessons,
each lesson containing a description of individual instructional tasks.
These tasks specify what students are to accomplish at any given point in
the sequence of instruction. Each student task identified for this study
served as the smallest unit for the literal program analysis. They were
characterized in terms of suggested classroom organization, teacher and
student activities, as well as conceptual information content addressed.
The purpose of the literal program analysis was to place the curriculum
tasks in a form that would facilitate the comparison with the observed
classroom instruction.

The Task Description Form (see Appendix C) was used to record a
narrative description of the actions of the target students. This form was
completed after each lesson and provided a detailed description of each task
identified during instruction. The Lesson Summary Form (see Appendix
C) was completed for each lesson observed to provide a unifying framework
for the task description analysis and was intended to provide summary in-
formation about the lesson as a whole and its linkage to other lessons. This
form summarized, at the lesson level, the function of the tasks as part of the
instructional unit and identified the propositions asserted by the teacher
and students.

In addition, selected lessons (i.e., those where an experiment was
set-up and predictions made, and those where observations were

interpreted) were video taped. Moreover, the audio tapes for these same

71

selected lessons were transcribed. This was done in an effort to collect a
more complete data base from which further analysis could be attempted.
[21° . l I | .

Clinical interviews (Pines, et al., 1978) were used to provide a con-
trolled situational context in an effort to infer conceptual framework as well
as follow it through the learning experiences. The interviews were used as
an in—depth method for inferring conceptual framework; for ascertaining
cognitive structure. This technique was used to elicit information from the
subjects and to generate data for the purpose of answering questions about
the patterns of conceptual change as well as the products (i.e., knowledge
states).

The tasks utilized for clinical interviewing included those tasks de-
signed to provide application experiences which were founded upon the
concept of photosynthesis in the Producers unit or prerequisite to it. This
procedure aided in the effort to obtain data which enhanced our under-
standing of conceptual change in the Producers unit.

The selection of tasks for inclusion was followed by the preparation of
detailed protocols, patterned after those described by Pines, et al. (1978),
which were used to provide a guide for the clinical interviewer. The propo-
sitional knowledge addressed by each clinical interview which was used in
the formulation of the protocols was also used, along with the procedures
developed by Smith and Sendelbach (197 9), to complete expected conceptual
frameworks for each of the tasks which made up an interview.

All clinical interviews consisted of two segments; each involving the
use of problem questions. The first involved a brief non-task oriented ses-
sion concerning the experiences and concepts addressed during classroom

activities. The second was a task-centered activity in which phenomena

72

were presented to the student to explore. During the exploration of these
phenomena the student’s thoughts were probed to determine relevant
conceptions.

Each clinical interview consisted primarily of two patterns of
questioning: 1) the presentation of a novel situation about which the stu-
dentwas asked to make, and then explain, a prediction, and 2) asking the
student to recall the purpose and results of investigations conducted during
instruction, to explain these results, and to predict and explain expected
future results. Each clinical interview was recorded on audio-tape. These
audio-tapes were then used to produce a typed transcript of all interviews
and in turn a cumulative proposition list for each target student.

Clinical interviews enabled the researcher to determine the extent of
conceptual development of subsuming and correlative concepts as well as
student understanding of propositional knowledge addressed and the pur-
pose and meaning of classroom tasks.

W

The purpose of the data analysis process was the organization of the
data base for the effective translation of relevant observational and quanti-
tative information into interpretable patterns. The data analysis involved
two phases. These phases were designed to provide greater refinement in
data selection for further analysis.

The analysis of changes in conceptual frameworks as inferred from
the data obtained from the psychomodeling instrument as well as discourse
provided an avenue through which the patterns and parameters of concep-
tual change were described. A formal approach for representing concep-
tual frameworks and from which changes can be monitored is the

“propositional network structure.” An example of such a network is

provided in Figure 4. This represents a modification of the “active
structural network” which was developed by Norman and Rumelhart
(1975). Moreover, this aspect of the study was built upon the research of
Kintsch ( 1974) and Brachman (1977).
W

The purpose of this phase was to identify the major changes that oc-
curred in students’ conceptions, the period of time during which they
occurred, and the specific segment of instruction during which the stu-
dents encountered information directly related to the change. A diagram of
the process used for the Phase I analysis is provided in Figure 5.
Wells

The identification of the major changes that occurred in students’
conceptions was done by representing the student conceptions at various
points during the course of the study and the information content of the sci-
ence lessons as lists or networks of propositions.

W. The psychomodeling instrument was used to col-
lect data (1) for determining an individual’s conceptual framework, and (2)
for determining group conceptual frameworks. These inferred conceptual
frameworks were then used to study the conceptual changes of individual’s
as well as groups of students. The use of the data collected for individual
analysis involved describing subject’s responses on a set of defined
variables. The students’ responses were first coded, using defined features
of the responses, based upon the coding scheme developed by Smith (1982).
From these codings, scores were computed for each student using a pro-
gram written for an Apple 11*. These scores reflected the amount of evi-
dence supporting the inference of student belief in alternative propositions

and interrelated sets of propositions.

74

 

A mm:

58.3.. _

48.58va ms :03 an 39:32
-5 mam—ovofioaohmn on... 89¢ Saw :3: woman vetomfi 0.83 683 .85
mowcago on: can .3830839 33388 533 .3 8535858 3%

05 me 303 a 835.5 33.5 6.3335 #5332 Ecomfimoaoum me 29:93.“ .v HEDGE

gamma

 

 

\

8— 3

 

 

Zm—GVNO

sass

nan—Sac:—
Zcmfio

 

A mQQU\

33:0

 

VQ
09:2;

mm>02mm

39:

 

azieémm/
F 252:: & some

 

Qua—DOME

J

6

3.89
3
ma.—

 

M=<

j

 

 

227;.»ng
Z423:

355555... 35655
E 5555 55 mmwcago 55.: 2: @553 3 5m: 3555 95 585m 35 9:
.5 :osflcommamu 35825 a 525.:— 359 589$ 29:25 H 5.23 .5 8855 .u g6;

5w530

vfloflom 3 25>qu A 355% 553 we
355% 55553 5350 E53555

 

macmfimcaohm ‘ 5355.52 :5ch

WWW—WWW” T 5.“ xWWWHMewaw—Sm T 2853595 ‘lllmomncamom mczmvofiosommm

 

muomfimoaoum ‘ mBEESE ESE—U

76

One must also have an approach for conceptions analysis. The pro-
cedures for analyzing student conceptions developed by Smith (1980) were
revised and expanded prior to this study. The foundation upon which this
methodology development was conducted evolved from research efforts at
the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center in coordination with the
Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan State University (Smith,
1980a).

The patterns and parameters of conceptual change as determined for
all the students were used to categorize the individuals selected for in—depth
study through clinical interviews within particular patterns. The in-
structional activities identified in the program analysis, intended to bring
about conceptual change, provided the framework for the analysis.

The results of such a process were used to explore the group patterns
of conceptual change. Those students inferred to have a specific conception
were selected out of the data file and their pre-test conceptions determined.
In an effort to study the process of conceptual change it was determined
which students possessed these conceptions and what conception resulted.

W. The procedure for the analysis of interview dis-
course involved the delineation of the propositions asserted during the in-
terview process. A students’ conceptual framework was inferred from data
obtained as students explained the scientific phenomena encountered
during the interview or as part of their classroom experiences.
Propositions obtained from the clinical interviews on different occasions
could be compared to identify changes in students’ conceptions.

It should be noted that this was not an evaluation study; it was not
intended to evaluate the student’s achievement of content or their ability to

hypothesize or explain. The inquiry skills of explanation and of hypothesis

77

generation were only used as situational contexts for inferring an indi-
vidual’s conceptual framework.

W. An application of the suggestions of Minsky (1975,
1977) and Davis (1980) resulted in student conceptions and the information
content of the science lessons being represented as lists of proposition
‘frames.’ These frames (see Appendix D) specified certain components of a
proposition which were fixed and other parts which could vary.

In order to facilitate the analysis of conceptual change the formula-
tion of frame matrices was undertaken. A ‘frame matrix’ was formed by
denoting the data points (lessons, pre- and post-assessment, and clinical
interviews) horizontally and the coded proposition frames vertically. The
affirmation of a specific alternative frame was recorded at the intersection
of the appropriate column and row.

These frame matrices, one representing propositional frames af-
firmed during instruction (see Appendix E) and one representing the
propositional frames affirmed by the four target students who were the
focal point of the classroom observations (see the frame matrix for Ben in
Appendix F), provided an organizing framework whereby the sequential
representations of propositions affirmed could be examined for changes.
The completion of a frame matrix was based upon the analysis of the psy-
chomodeling instrument, narratives and transcripts based upon classroom
observations, as well as the clinical interviews. The frame matrix, as an
analysis vehicle, provided insights concerning a student’s interpretations
of phenomena encountered as part of the instructional unit.

Wm. Propositions obtained from the psy-
chomodeling instrument, clinical interviews or classroom observations and

plotted on the frame matrix could then be compared to identify changes in

students’ conceptions. A strategy was developed with the purpose of pro-

viding for the organized search of the data base for relevant observations

and quantitative data, and the effective translation of this information into a

form useful for conceptual change analysis. The strategy included the

following steps:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

Review data from target classroom and select one of the target

students:

1.1) who has interesting and clear preconceptions, and

1.2) for whom there is reasonably complete data.

Represent the student’s preconceptions based upon results from

psychomodeling instrument in terms of:

2.1) Lists of propositions organized by t0pic and indicating
source.

2.2) Lists or diagrams of preconceptions organized by proposi-
tion frames and subtopic.

Select a particular preconception for selected student which:

3.1) is fairly complete, and

3.2) is interesting.

Identify lessons and tasks in the literal program in which the

student would confront information related to the selected pre-

conception.

4.1) Examine the information content (set of propositions) of
each task to determine if it would complete any proposi-
tional frame included in the preconceptions.

Analyze the relation between the preconceptions and the infor-

mafion content of the lesson.

5.1) for each relevant proposition (ones which would complete a
proposition frame), characterize the relationship between
the preconception proposition and the program pr0position.
Some relationships are:

5.1.1) Synonymous.

5.1.2) Directly contradictory.

5.1.3) Simple additive.

5.1.4) Inconsistent meaning of common concept? (NOTE:
May be found if the frames were used to define
‘related.’ Inconsistent meaning may be due to dif-
ferent frame used by student.)

5.1.5) Other relationships (define type).

6) Predict changes that would be expected:

6.1) Specify the predicted change and represent it as a list or
diagram.

6.2) Represent the changed state in a manner parallel to 2.

6.3) Explain the basis for each predicted change or lack of
change which might have been predicted.

7) Describe/analyze the context in which the ‘encounter’ (between
preconceptions and information content) takes place.

7.1) Question being asked, answered (in literal program)

7.2) Science task being performed/or information source.

7.3) Other interesting context (e.g., nature and significance of
earlier tasks which may influence concept formation).

The above questions provided a focus whereby the data base input

could be organized for effective analysis. The results were intended to

80

provide an organizing framework which would assist in the description of
patterns of conceptual change.

In each case the sequential representations of conceptual framework
were examined for changes. It was then that determinations were made
concerning the relationship of any changed conceptual framework with the
desired framework.

Insimslinn

Once changes in students’ conceptions had been identified interest
was directed toward the representation of instruction, based upon informa-
tion obtained from classroom observation. This process was made less dif-
ficult by using the literal program analysis which provided a characteriza-
tion of the task organization and propositional knowledge of each chapter.

Segmentation. The segmentation of instruction (i.e., literal program
analysis), which provided an identification of the student tasks which
would be occasioned if the suggestions in the instructional materials were
followed literally, was used to compare actual behavior with the program
intentions.

W. The literal program analysis identified the
propositional knowledge to be addressed in the instructional unit. In order
to facilitate the analysis, the proposition frames previously defined (cf.,
frame matrix representations) were used, in conjunction with the narra-
tive and summary descriptions of each lesson at the task level, to document
the propositional content addressed in the instruction as well as that ob-
served in student responses.

Winn The lessons oc-

curring between two clinical interviews which reflected a change were then

81

examined to identify those lessons or parts of lessons which contained in~
formation relevant to the propositions reflecting that change.

The observational data and the representation of instruction was ex-
amined in conjunction with the students’ frame matrix to identify the
major changes occurring in students’ conceptions and the portions of the
instruction containing information relevant to these changes. The identi-
fication of changes other than those which involve simple addition of new
propositions require some means of identifying propositions which are re-
lated yet different. To address this need each frame specified certain com-
ponents of a proposition which were fixed and other parts which could vary.
Any proposition which reflected the constant portion of the proposition
frame was considered an alternative instantiation of that particular frame.

EhaselLAnalxsis

The results of Phase I were used to guide the Phase II analyses
where the transcripts of clinical interviews and relevant portions of lessons
were used as primary data sources. Questions were formulated (Lott, 1981,
1982) to provide a focus whereby the data base input could be organized for
effective analysis. The results provided an organizing framework which
assisted in the description of important classroom, teacher, and student
characteristics which could be used to describe relevant patterns of concep-
tual change.

Wags

In this phase several conceptual changes were selected from those
which had been identified in Phase I. These were then further analyzed
using the narratives and transcripts of the clinical interviews and portions

of important lessons.

82

There were several issues which guided the further analysis of the
selected conceptual changes. In describing conceptual changes attention
was directed toward the corresponding identifiable actions and situational
constraints as well as the informational, intellectual, and reasoning char-
acteristics of subjects. Insights were sought concerning patterns and
regularities of conceptual change which could be, used to formulate conjec-
tures for further research.

The procedure began with the examination of the pre-conceptions.
The propositional knowledge addressed was then compared with these pre-
conceptions and points of cognitive conflict were noted. After the learning
experiences leading up to this point, the question raised was “Did the pre-
conception answer the question raised by classroom experience?” If it did
not, then “Was there any change?” If there was, “What was the level of
change?” If there was not, a comparison of student capabilities and task re-
quirements was made.

The following questions were aimed at providing the foundation for
making judgements about descriptive representation of conceptual change
patterns and the directions for further inquiry. The results were intended
to provide bases for describing important classroom, teacher, and student
characteristics which could be used to describe relevant patterns.

1) Pre- & Post-Conceptions comparison: comparison of propositional
knowledge resolution, literal program analysis, propositional
knowledge addressed, student pre-conceptions, and student post-
conceptions.

2) Has there been a conceptual change? Is the change of conceptual

framework a reformation of cognitive structure?

83

3) The reformation of cognitive structure may involve variations in

4)

5)

organization. What is the change level?

3.1)

3.2)

3.3)
3.4)

3.5)

Imitating or Assimilation: involves the direct use of beliefs
provided by the instructor or by an instructional medium.
Modification

Translation

Transformation: generalization an re-ordering of previ-
ously assimilated concepts and principles from the subject
matter.

Accommodation or Construction: an active search for new
information, concepts and principles which are then com-

bined with previous knowledge in essentially novel ways.

Classroom task analysis

4.1)
4.2)

What was student question?

What was addressed by activity?

Classroom observation

5.1)

5.2)

Student acts

5.1.1) What were the tasks performed by the student?

5.1.2) How does the student organize the elements of
instruction?

5.1.3) How does the student verify the adequacy of the new
conceptual structure?

5.1.4) What kind of systematic course of action did the stu-
dent plan?

Cognitive processing required by learning tasks.

5.2.1) Recall: storage and retrieval of verbal information.

6)

5.3)

5.4)

5.5)
5.6)

5.2.2) Discriminate: distinguishing characteristics uti-
lizing intellectual skills.

5.2.3) Develop: relations and principle learning; involves
intellectual skills referred to as higher-order rules.

5.2.4) Assess: problem-solving; involves the use of cognitive
strategies.

What were the identifiable actions and situational

constraints called for by tasks?

Propositional knowledge addressed

5.4.1) What information is provided by the task?

5.4.2) What knowledge addressed is not reflected in the
literal program analysis? What was the source of the
knowledge?

Classroom interaction

Teacher acts

5.6.1) What question did the teacher ask?

5.6.2) What was teachers intent?

5.6.3) How does this compare to literal program analysis?

Clinical Interview

6.1)
6.2)

6.3)

Does the student recognize what is being called for?
How does student interpret the tasks in which he has been
engaged?

What question did student think he/she was answering?

Student Manual

7 .1)
7.2)

Is there evidence of conceptual change?
What descriptions and explanations for phenomena en-

countered were offered?

7 .3) What kind of plans were provided or suggested by the stu-
dent to determine the adequacy of his/her predictions?

The above questions provided a focus whereby the data could be ana-
lyzed in an effort to propose implications for curriculum development and
teacher education, and conjectures for the direction of further inquiry.
91"]II'I .II].

This aspect of the analysis was aimed at determining if the student
recognized what was being called for in the instructional tasks, as well as
how he interpreted the tasks in which he was engaged. In addition, inter-
est was directed at exposing how the student interpreted the tasks in which
he had been involved; what question the student thought he was answering.
I | I. l I . I E l .

The procedure for the analysis of classroom discourse involved the
delineation of the propositions asserted during the instructional process.
This approach to the analysis of discourse provided a framework for draw-
ing upon the transcripts as a source of evidence necessary to discuss the
dynamics of conceptual change. In addition, at selected points in the in-
structional sequence there was the transformation of text or linguistic dis-
course in the educational setting observed into propositional networks
which could then be compared with the literal program and with previous
networks.

A student’s conceptual framework was inferred from data obtained
as students explained scientific phenomena, and developed and tested
hypotheses. Within the classroom setting, the phenomenon to be explained
was observed within the task environment. Thus, the only unknown was
the conceptual framework of the individual. It was therefore possible to

infer an individual’s conceptual framework from the explanation provided

86

by the student in conjunction with the situational context as observed. This
is shown by a schematic diagram along with an example in Figure 6.

The approach has been successfully used for the analysis of text from
student manuals and psychomodeling instruments. However, these data
sources provide information at the microstructure level. For classroom or
interview discourse what is needed is an analysis resulting in the repre-
sentation of macrostructure. Schank and Abelson (197 7) have argued that
“the meaning of a text is more than the sum of the meanings of the in-
dividual sentences that comprise it” (p. 22). Thus, for the analysis of dis-
course a theory of semantic representation utilizing the macrostructure of
a passage (Kintsch and VanDijk, 1978; Turner and Greene, 197 8) was used.

The approach used to analyze discourse was developed after the
techniques utilized in cognitive psychology (Kintsch, 1978; Turner and
Greene, 1978; Schank and Abelson, 1977) were explored for their appropri-
ateness to this study. The analysis systems of Pines, et al. (1977) “designed
for elucidating substantive cognitive content, indicating cognitive differen-
tiation and enabling the comparison of discourse analysis” (p. 74) along
with those techniques used by Erlwanger (1974) were modified for the par-
ticular needs of this study.

The analysis of discourse provided the information necessary to dis-
cuss the dynamics of conceptual change. The limitations found in an ear-
lier study (Lott, 1980) were overcome with the possibility of formulating in-
ferences concerning conceptual framework during the instructional se-
quence in addition to those inferred pre- and post-instruction on the basis of

written psychomodeling instruments.

65:85 555 .5 8:88; o5 .5

55058 .5 mm 58w 8 0:3 895 mam .5 5.55 35 55 5:58.558: 8:8 85:8 55 .55
53 .5555588 55588 965 05 5 5:88 523 .85 85 8 £58 85858 25.
5.5588 #535: 5555598 5 8 25585 558 to 53m 55 5508 E 555 :55

05 8:55 5955 3 838m 53 .5538 mEm 55 5c 55: 8E. ._55 553 m 85 55
-38 mam 83 585555 55 SE... 8:888 55 .5 555505.55 55 55> 853 $5 .85

265 05 5 8858555 m5 55m 25» 5558 55 .85 58.35885 53588 55 5&8

:5 8» .5385 55 .3 55585 5:080:85 505.35 .5 25558555 55 E5 5585 555
-535 m5 .5 885885 55 9:8: 8655888an 85585 85850 8 535 5555.55

1.53088 ..— 1:38.50

 

 

8:35m
:osuca—axm

  

 

 

 

 

 

            

38:38

6 HEDGE

.255: «:5

«5:55;.—
5:85

  

5x350

  

CHAPTER4
RESULTS

The analysis which is described in this chapter evolved from the se-
lection of a set of important changes identified in the Phase I analysis. The
data for Phase I, which had been collected in a variety of ways (i.e.,
observation, interviews, tape recordings), was in the form of words, rather
than numbers. The analysis of this data consisted of a sequence of three
activities (i.e., data organization and reduction, data display, and the
search for changes in students’ conceptions). Data organization and re-
duction consisted of the simplification and transformation of the raw data
that appeared in the field notes via editing (i.e., lesson summaries,
transcription). An approach for data display (i.e., frame matrix) was then
initiated and resulted in the coding of propositions identified as having been
asserted by students and teacher. The purpose of Phase I was to identify
the major changes that occurred in the target students’ conceptions, the
period of time during which they occurred and the specific segment of in-
struction that may have influenced these changes. Propositions obtained
from the psychomodeling instrument, clinical interviews or classroom ob-
servations were plotted on the frame matrix and compared to identify
changes in students’ conceptions.

Initially, the changes identified in Phase I were noted for each of the
four target students. However, based on the voluminous amounts of data
(i.e., 23 pages of Lesson Summaries, one page for each lesson observed; 134
pages of Task Description, which provided a narrative description of class-
room activity at the individual task level; 182 pages of Classroom

Observation notes; 52 pages of transcription based upon selected lessons

$

from nearly 12 hours of observation over a period of 10 weeks, and nearly 12
pages of field notes from 1 hour of clinical interviews for each target
student), only one student was selected for comprehensive analysis. This
student (who will be referred to by the pseudonym Ben) was selected on the
basis of two criteria: the student had interesting and clear preconceptions
and the available data on this student was reasonably complete. Finally, a
set of the most important changes of this student were selected for analysis.
It is this set of important changes that are described, as a sequence of case
studies, in this chapter.

The Phase II analysis took the form of a series of case studies (Lott,
1983a; 1983b; 1983c) with the purpose of identifying features of the instruc-
tional events and states of the student’s prior conceptual knowledge that
might account for the changes which actually occurred. The selection of
three conceptual changes identified in Phase I, which were thought to
merit further study, was followed by a sequence of analyses; each focusing
upon the instructional activities associated with one of the identified con-
ceptual changes in an effort to expose relevant patterns and regularities.
These were case studies of an individual student’s attempt to make sense of
encounters with physical phenomena and classroom discourse during a
sequence of learning experiences concerning photosynthesis. This analysis
has focused upon the description of classroom occurrences, as well as
teacher and student actions, emphasizing those periods of instruction,
identified in Phase 1, during which the selected changes appeared to have
occurred.

Next, several patterns are discussed which yield insights concerning
the ways of going wrong when attempting to bring about conceptual

change. The focus of the analysis was the finding that the preconception of

food for plants was not displaced but was reorganized to include a mech-
anism for the absorption of food, a substance for making the plant green,
and a process for the mixing of food sources. The results of this study pro-
vides clear instances, as well as documentation, showing how the precon-
ceptions held by students continued to influence, as might be expected, how
they interpreted the natural phenomena which they observed, as well as the
information content which they encountered.

It was found that changes in the student’s knowledge were influ-
enced by several different kinds of encountered information. Observations
of phenomena, as well as abstract ideas presented by the teacher or other
students, played an important role in the process of knowledge change.
Moreover, the process of knowledge change involved active construction by
the student of propositional links not explicitly encountered in instruction.

In addition, questions actually presented by the teacher did not direct
students toward the distinctions which were necessary for the interpreta-
tion of the observed phenomena. Moreover, student and teacher interaction
was found to be influenced by communication difficulties brought about by
the use of different interpretive frames by the teacher and student or by the
use of a limiting questioning pattern.

Wanna

Three conceptual changes were found which were thought to merit
further study. These consisted of the inclusion of the following in a student
conceptual framework:

1) the belief that the cotyledon collects/transmits food to the

embryo;

2) the importance of chlorophyll for plants and its relationship

to light;

91

3) the belief that photosynthesis is the “putting together” of

materials that are food for plants.
Each of these changes, which were observed in one student who will be re-
ferred to as Ben, was the basis for a case study. Each case focused upon the
instructional activities associated with one of the identified conceptual
changes, each in some way concerned with food for plants and/or plants
and light, in an effort to expose relevant patterns and regularities. In each
case the student’s preconceptions and postconceptions are presented,
followed by a look at the student’s instructional experiences. It was ob-
served that throughout the period of instruction, the students (including
Ben) continued to maintain their preconceptions of food for plants. Given
the goals of the unit, this lack of change was also a focus for further
analysis.

Prior to instruction Ben viewed food for plants to be various external
raw materials including light. The delineation of pre-instructional propo-
sitional knowledge provided a reference point from which the extent of the
conceptual change could be ascertained and understood. In each case
study the central change was an addition to the student’s conceptual
framework. The analysis attempted to gain insights into how these
changes came about.

An important aspect of any analysis of conceptual change is to con-
sider the information content encountered during instruction. A question
which provided a focus for further analysis was how the change became
integrated into the subject’s conceptual framework. In each case, repre-
sentations of the subject’s conceptual framework were examined in an ef-

fort to reveal the dynamics over time. Ben’s preconceptions are presented,

followed by a description of his experiences of instruction. His postconcep-
tions as revealed in the clinical interview following the selected instruc-
tional sequence in which the change occurred are then described. This
provides the basis for considering the nature and extent of the conceptual
change. In an effort to expose relevant patterns and regularities the
propositional knowledge addressed within the sequence of learning expe-
riences will be described.
E . [I | |°

Each of the case studies which follow will provide a description of
Ben’s conceptual framework over time and his actual instructional
experiences. First, a review is made of his conceptual framework prior to
the instructional experiences which were the focus of the case study. This
is followed by a description of the sequence of lessons and tasks, the propo-
sitional knowledge which was asserted by the teacher or students during
discussions and procedural tasks and an account of the relevant student
and teacher acts observed during the lessons. Then a review is made of
Ben’s conceptual framework following the instructional experiences which
were the focus of the case study and the changes which were identified as
the result of the Phase II analysis of classroom observations and clinical
interviews. Finally, pre- and post-instruction conceptions reflected in the
group data (i.e., data collected for all students using the psychomodeling
instrument) are reviewed and compared to Ben’s conceptions.

Classroom observation of the occurrences during instruction
provided the data base from which student acts, teacher acts, and
interaction inherent in the instructional process could be analyzed. This
analysis in conjunction with the description of conceptual changes provides

a basis for identifying patterns and regularities.

This analysis involves an examination of Ben’s conceptual frame-
work relevant to the function of the cotyledon, a part of the seed. A dis-
cussion of Ben’s conceptions pertaining to the propositional knowledge
encountered provides several insights concerning Ben’s ‘web of meaning’
as it relates to the function of the cotyledon.

W. The information obtained from the frame matrix
was used to develop a diagrammatic representation (cf., Norman and
Rumelhart, 1975) of his conceptual framework concerning the cotyledon
and food for plants (see Figure 7). Ben’s frame matrix was based upon the
analysis of his psychomodeling instrument, narratives and transcripts
from classroom observations, as well as transcripts of his clinical
interviews. This diagram illustrates several interesting characteristics of
Ben’s conceptual framework prior to instruction.

There is evidence that Ben believes that fertilizer is food for plants.
However, a closer examination of Ben’s first clinical interview shows that
his concept of fertilizer is nonconventional. He indicates that fertilizer is
food for plants but then elaborates that “seeds absorb fertilizer from
sunlight, soil, manufactured fertilizer, decomposed objects, and water.”
Thus, he believes plants get this food from the soil, light, water, organic
matter, and manufactured fertilizer. This constitutes evidence for several
alternative propositions which give insight into the interpretive model used
by Ben.

Notable by its absence in interview one is any mention of food coming
from or being stored in the seed. Although he agreed with this idea when

he encountered it on the pretest, he did not bring it up in the interview

g ZOHEMUZOOHmm ZOEDZDE 9m<m Qmmm .b guy—h

893°

 

 

3,: A

35:53.89

“coma

 

GOA;

 

 

3%...

        

.832: £593
8— 89¢

 

 

 

SEE...
vehflauahsflae @m—N—a—m'fimfl'w
.833
lJ 8. 30.3,.
.55 52 IV 2»:
a
/ =8 7: 8.5.
“coma
“cows
4 acoua
2.23.. A mam—mm

 

 

mos—coon

despite several opportunities. In addition, when asked to describe the
structure of a seed there was no mention of seed parts.

WW. Those student and teacher acts ob-
served during the period of interest revolved around an experimental ar-
rangement where the seed parts of a bean were placed in a “germination
system” to determine which would grow. During a period of several weeks
Ben worked with his group observing changes in the seed parts and record-
ing their measurements.

Lesson 4.1 was devoted to setting up the germination system and
taking the first measurements of the seed parts. After hearing a teacher
presentation concerning the procedures for measuring and recording, the
target students decided who would be responsible for each task in caring for
the system and recording data. After the first lesson (i.e., 4.1) there fol-
lowed four lessons during which the seed parts were measured and the
results recorded. During each of these lessons there was a discussion in
which students had an opportunity to describe changes in the parts.
During the third lesson the students were introduced to an averaging
method with which they could begin to observe group data patterns. During
the fourth lesson the discussions began to involve students in interpretive
acts. The technique for averaging data points was used during lesson 4.4
but was not used thereafter.

Early in Lesson 4.3 as the target group began the measurement of
each seed part someone indicates the cotyledon has shrunk, but Ben mea-
sures again and finds no shrinkage; others disagree. During the discus-
sion a student indicates that while the cotyledon alone has not grown the
embryo with the cotyledon had. Ben indicates that the embryo had grown
“wing-y” things.

It was during Lesson 4.3 that the teacher conducted a discussion
concerning what an average is. Ben watched as the teacher demonstrates
the technique to be used with the class chart data for finding an average.
He became involved in the discussion and watched as another student used
the concept of a balance point to find an average. Several in the class asked
for another demonstration of the averaging technique which had been de-
scribed by the teacher, and several students inquired as to the purpose of
this procedure. Later, during Lesson 4.4 while the teacher was using the
averaging technique for each seed part, a student indicated that he was not
sure of the task being done. The teacher attempted to clarify the procedure.

Lesson 4.4 continued the process of measuring and recording.
Growth is observed and during the measurement of the cotyledon with em-
bryo attached Ben exclaims that the cotyledon has shrunk. During a class-
room discussion in Lesson 4.4 Ben encountered, as the result of a
hypothesis verbalized by a student, the information that the cotyledon
provides food for the plant. This was offered by the student in the context of
a question in reference to the embryo and whether the cotyledon would
grow. The student response was that the cotyledon would not grow, it
would “give it (i.e., the embryo) food to grow.”

After the average length for each seed part was found, a discussion
was initiated aimed at determining which seed part had grown the fastest.
Ben stated that the cotyledon had. Kathy, another student in Ben’s group,
indicated that the cotyledon and embryo had; this received general agree-
ment from the class. The question was asked as to what parts had not
grown. Ben indicated that the cotyledon had shrunk. This apparent in-
consistency in Ben’s observations was not addressed by the teacher. It was

not clear if he was referring to the cotyledon alone or the cotyledon and

97

embryo. Some in the class suggest that the observation of cotyledon shrink-
age was due to measurement error. There was general agreement that the
cotyledon alone had not grown. The teacher then asked about the embryo
and Gloria, another student in Ben’s group, indicated that it had grown.

At the beginning of Lesson 4.5 the teacher announced that they would
measure each part and then discuss their predictions concerning what
each seed part does for the growing plant. Ben immediately observed a
change; the embryo and cotyledon has grown. The cotyledon was found to
have shrunk while the whole bean remained the same. The teacher asks
why the embryo alone had shrunk to which Ben replied that it was probably
dying. During the discussion which followed the measurement of seed
parts, and in reference to the embryo and cotyledon, Ben described how it
had grown and Walt replied that the embryo had stopped growing because
it didn’t have anymore food. Ben then suggested that it needed fertilizer.

As the discussion continued the teacher asks that they think about
their predictions. Ben states that his prediction was that the cotyledon
would protect the seed until it sprouted. Vickie indicated that her predic-
tion was that the cotyledon would feed the embryo. The teacher responded
by rephrasing and saying “the cotyledon acts like the mother and feeds the
embryo, that’s what made it grow.”

During Lessons 4.4 through 4.7 the proposition that the cotyledon
provides food for the embryo was affirmed several times. These lessons
were intended to reveal to the student that the embryo only grows when at-
tached to the cotyledon. Moreover, their observation that as the embryo
grows the attached cotyledon shrinks was intended to lead to support for the
idea that the function of the cotyledon is to provide food for the young plant.

An examination of the frame matrix and the supporting transcription of

classroom discourse provides evidence that on several occasions students
hypothesized or inferred from their observations that the cotyledon provides
food for the young plant.

During Lessons 4.4 through 4.7 Ben encountered the idea that the
cotyledon provides food for the embryo. However, this idea would not be in
conflict with his preconception concerning food for plants. His preconcep-
tion of food for plants, asserted during clinical interview one, was that it
consists of external materials which are “absorbed” by the plant. All of
these sources except soil are present during the germination experiment.
The observation of the embryogrowth when attached to a cotyledon necessi-
tates only that he add to his conceptual framework an object, the cotyledon,
through which food is absorbed.

Observations which were made during Lesson 4.3 through 4.6 did not
necessitate any fundamental change in Ben’s conception of food. His pre-
conception of food for plants was that raw materials were absorbed by the
plant. The following transcript excerpt from clinical interview one provides

an insight into this conception.

Ben: The seeds need fertilizer for them to grow.
I: Could you tell me a little more about how they get this
fertilizer?
Ben: They absorb it from the sun rays and from the soil and
other things.
I: Could you give me an idea, you say other things, what
these other things might be?
Ben: Well, they would be manufactured fertilizer, decomposed
objects, such as dead animals or something, and water.

Two of the raw materials referred to, light and water, were present
in the germination system experiment. Thus, the observations during the
experiment were apparently not problematic and did not challenge the

“central concepts” (Posner, et al., 1982) of Ben’s conceptual framework.

However, the experiences of chapter four have resulted in the intemaliza-
tion of information content which is internally consistent. Ben could there-
fore explain his observations through the addition to his framework of an
object which could absorb and transfer food to the growing plant. Thus, the
cotyledon ‘providing food’ was assimilated as the proposition “the cotyledon
(does) (collect/transmit) food for the young plant” which results in a reor-
ganization of Ben’s concept of food.

Lesson 4.7 marks the culmination of the germination system
experiment. Several students reported the results of their group’s germi-
nation system. The teacher referred to each of the experimental conditions
in an effort to organize the responses. However, there were instances when
she referred to the parts of a seed creating some ambiguity in relation to the
condition referenced in the student response. The teacher consistently re-
ferred to seed parts rather than experimental conditions, increasing the
potential for confusion (e.g., was a reference being made to the cotyledon
alone, or the cotyledon attached to the embryo). After each group had re-
sponded the teacher changed the focus of the discussion by asking why the
cotyledon had shrunk. This continued the ambiguity of reference as to
whether the teacher was alluding to the attached cotyledon as a part of a
condition, or the condition consisting of a separate cotyledon.

The discussion continued with the teacher asking which part would
grow into the plant. After it was established that the embryo would grow
into the plant the teacher asked what the function of the cotyledon is.
Student responses were in what became a “ping-pong” discussion (cf., Mary
Budd Rowe, 1969); there was no probing on the part of the teacher to deter-

mine the underlying meaning of responses. Students were saying the

100

cotyledon gjyga the embryo food. The teacher stated that the cotyledon is the
food.

W. An examination of Ben’s postconception provides
some evidence that he has internalized a theoretical proposition concerned
with the function of the cotyledon. Ben’s interpretation of his observations
and the assertions of the teacher and other students during Lessons 4.4
through 4.7 is revealed by his statement, during Clinical Interview 2, that
“the embryo with the one cotyledon stores extra water for the embryo
(inaudible) the germination discs it gets water from the cotyledon.” It can
be inferred from this statement that he views the cotyledon as a “collector”
of water for the embryo.

A review of Ben’s postconceptions in contrast to his preconceptions
reveals that he has experienced a conceptual change. This change of con-
ceptual framework seems to have involved a transformation (cf., Lott, 1982)
of cognitive structure whereby new concepts and principles were combined
with previous knowledge. The concepts present in the preconception repre-
sentation have been retained yet with the addition of a new concept, the
cotyledon, the relationships have been changed.

A diagram representing Ben’s knowledge of plants and food after
Lesson 4.7 based upon the second clinical interview is given in Figure 8.
Ben’s original framework is represented by the solid line while the addi-
tions and changes are shown by dashed lines. For example, in the original
diagram there was no mention of the parts of a seed or their function. The
diagram highlights the modification of this belief.

The representation in Figure 8 provides evidence that Ben’s belief
system has expanded as the result of observations during Chapter 4 to in-

clude the cotyledon as a source of food. However, a review of the second

101

 

code—£350 cave

3:059:033 ace—aau._fiococ Bot-new .~\\\\
wave—32.x .35 II'

 

 

 

8%. 8.3.585.— l'. ~22 ZOELHOZOOEmOn— ZO—BOZE Eula Qmmm

d mum—36F.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

5352.38
..cozua z. . - > S >
".""".I\
a J
.. 85$? gmmfimgs: Ego—z. . .. .. .mutnfllvvlall.
M Ehfic chcdcdtccclvmuu (44¢.44444443V .
AIUMWn «Rana MW. @mmmnm
3.31 mean!—
Lflaoa' ‘lll “
9:. «33° \“
. .83.. 32:5. W.
=8 \ ...,.
..Qz<\
3:253:09 QHHZ Eu: . \

«coma

 

«can:

  
    

 

  

 

1 .332: 35%...

     

 

 

3:33

 

..\\\\\\\\\.\\\‘ g
D-

O
.§\~.§\~‘\\\§‘\\\\‘~‘~A§“.~‘.‘.‘
O

\osssssss

 

 

O

\\...\
\\\\\\§\\\§\\\\\\\§2§m \

.E ..

\\
s

9.
o..\\\\\\§“\

..mazoomm w....:......._.m§i\\\... ammo<fi<w

\

...‘\\ ‘_

co§\\\\\\\\\§\ 0. \
O§\\\\‘\\\\\\

\‘Q.‘Q.“‘§‘..‘.§‘Q§

".'I.'.l'-

..Q.‘.

ocean

OO\““‘ \““““‘\‘\“““““““““““““‘\

\\\\
\\\‘
i"

/'

\a.Iluuauasnuuaauauaanasusaunanaaaaw
Mvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv.vvvvwvvvwvmvvvvvvvvvvvwvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvva”

7%
3.

e
\\
\\\\

tititniti‘n.

”v

102

clinical interview indicates that here is an inconsistent meaning for a
common concept. The evidence for this is his assertion that the “cotyledon
would store water for the embryo”; giving some indication that he views the
cotyledon as a mechanism for feeding the embryo, rather than as consist-
ing of or being food. A goal conception that the cotyledon is food is implied
in the literal program while Ben’s conception is that the cotyledon contains
food (i.e., water) that it gim, or transmits, to the embryo. The following
transcript from the second clinical interview provides a view of his belief

concerning the importance of water.

I: You have mentioned water several times. What do you
think water does?
Ben: Well, it is part of the feeding process for the plant or the
seeds.

Ben previously indicated a belief that food for plants is ‘fertilizer’
taken in from several forms of matter. He now conceptualizes food acquisi-
tion for plants to include the cotyledon as a source as well. He has
assimilated the idea that the cotyledon provides food or is a source of food in
terms of the cotyledon being a mechanism for collecting and transmitting
food for the young plant. His ideas of what the food is remained
unchanged.

W. The studentS’ pre- and
post-instruction conceptions for this topic show that prior to instruction 63%
viewed raw materials as food for plants (see Table 2), while after instruction
20% continued to believe that only raw materials are food for plants. The
group data further shows that while many student’s put it together like
Ben, a few did not. The evidence suggests that only a few students com-
prehend this as the instructional program would have it. This shows,

based upon the post-instruction administration of the psychomodeling

103

 

TABLE 2.
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS CONCERNING FOOD FOR PLANTS
(11:21)
VALUE LABEL BEE-{IESII EQSIf-fIIESfIf

1 Something plants make (raw

materials not mentioned). 0 24
2 Water (only). 15 O
3 Water, air and light (only). 0 5
4 Raw materials (other combi-

nations including water). 33 10
5 Fertilizer, minerals and/or

soil. 5 5
6 Raw materials (other combi-

nations not including water). 10 0
7 Raw materials and cotyledon

seed. 0 19
8 Something made and raw

materials. 0 0
9 Unsure 19 15
10 Tells why needed (only) 10 5
11 Cotyledon or seed (only) 0 10

O Other 10 15

104

instrument, that of the ten students (45%) who assert, like Ben, that the
cotyledon does provide food for the embryo to grow, only three (14%) gave
evidence of believing that it is the food (see Figure 9). The data supports the
view that Ben’s interpretations were not that different from those of other
students. The data indicates that of those students who held the idea that
the cotyledon provides food, sixty-six percent continued to view raw
materials (water, soil, air, etc.) as also being food for plants (see Table 2).

The change of interest in this case is the addition of chlorophyll to
Ben’s conceptual framework. The analysis seeks to determine how this
change came about; how the concept of chlorophyll became integrated into
Ben’s conceptual framework. Also of interest in this study are the conjec-
tures concerning his view of the consequences of the presence or absence of
chlorophyll and its function in the living processes of plants.

Preconceptions. Prior to his exposure to the germination system Ben
refers to seeds need for sunlight. In addition, he indicated that seeds need
fertilizer for them to grow. Elaborating further he stated that “they absorb it
from the sun rays and from the soil and other things.” He explains, during
the first clinical interview, that these other things are “manufactured
fertilizer, decomposed objects, such as dead animals or something, and
water.” The important insight at this point is that Ben believes plants get
something from these materials. In this instance he refers to fertilizer,
however, he indicates by his reply that it is different from commercial
fertilizer. In his view the raw materials are a source of “nutrients” (see
Figure 10).

Ben’s preconceptions of what constitutes food for plants involved ex-

ternal raw materials. These materials (water, light, etc.) are the sources of

105

.ZOQMEOU 8.3. no 205.02% am? no mgm; E—AkZflEa—AV .a guy—h

 

.18.— 2- £3.32: in: mm
3.5.5.32...— a

.18. 8.. :- ants-e .5. D

 

 

 

.351... .3223 5:82 332:2 H2.52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iiiii

 

 

 

 

02
cookbook 30.9.0.5 3%
Ba 3 :88
8.2.93.5. s 18.. .— amic-F a 3 n— 933....
cove—>80
mam-£2 02 3.5850135 I> act-.3 oz 0.. .5553...— I> 05 In. a
m o c we I a u 8 a 8 2 I
_ O c on a u q n— — v a ._

 

 

 

 

 

106

d; ZOELm—OZOOWQL 8:03 DZ< mezjm mimm .3 gay—h

l,

\ .83.. # _ o
MHNHAHBMWrA A a 3 Ag.—

833

   

 

     

  

33.35.... 3:3
0:235? .533:

25.93

   

 

6 f coco—63:3

£855....

6 ‘ 3:250:30 Qnfimz

 

 

 

32m

 

Bums-soc:—

 

2,:

 

 

 

Eons

107

something (“fertilizer” or “nutrients”) used by the plant to live and grow.
These materials are taken in or as Ben refers to it “absorbed.” The plants
need in terms of light is viewed in terms of consequences; the presence of
light results in strength and growth. There is no evidence of the function of
light in bringing about these consequences.
WW. During instruction in chapter five
Ben observed grass grown in the light and dark. Early in Lesson 5.1, prior
to the set-up of the experiment, a discussion was conducted around the
question “do plants need light to grow?” During the discussion Ben re-

marked that:

They won’t grow as extensively if they are in the dark. They’ll
still get the food they need to grow sunlight will give them
more food and they will grow bigger.

Although another student conjectured that plants do need light to grow,
Ben suggested that plants in the dark get food from water and fertilizer
whereas in the light they get their food from light in addition to water and
fertilizer.

Several days following the initial planting of grass seeds, but prior to
any observations of growth, the teacher organized a discussion concerning
seed part functions. Following a brief discussion about the embryo, the
teacher asked “What about the cotyledon?” She indicated that she was
aware that some of the students had different ideas and would like to hear
what they were. The students who she called upon stated that “it (i.e., the
cotyledon) gives food to the embryo.” The teacher responded by saying
“OK.” and then stating “It is food to the embryo.” There was then a discus-
sion revolving around the idea of the cotyledon as a mechanism for getting

food. During this exchange of ideas a student suggested that the cotyledon

108

stores food. The teacher then pointed out that the cotyledon shrivels and
gets smaller. It was at this point that Ben stated that the cotyledon gives
food to the embryo and another student commented that the cotyledon ab-
sorbs the food.

It was during the discussion in Lesson 5.3, following the observation
of the plants and recording of results, that Ben encountered the information
that the cotyledon helps plants begin to grow in the dark. This reference to
the cotyledon and plant growth in the dark came as the students were dis-
cussing the results of their observations. Several students observed that
plants in the dark begin to grow more than those in the light, while others
indicated that their plants in the light grew more than those in the dark. It
was during the closing remarks of this lesson that the teacher made the ob-
servation that “plants in the dark have grown as as well or better than the
ones in the light.”

The observation that plants in the dark turn yellow was made in les-
son 5.4 when the students took the plants out of the closet where they had
been kept in the dark. The task before the students was to measure the
height of the plants. It was during this lesson that some plants from each
group were switched, (i.e., plants in the light were moved to the dark and
plants in the dark were moved to the light). This provided a four-plot
experimental design in which plants were measured and the results
recorded over a period of several weeks.

Ben’s focus on the height during Lesson 5.4 led him to observe that
“plants in the dark grow taller than those in the light.” He concluded that
“plants in the dark grew well because they got nutrients and the food they
needed from other sources than the sun.” Although a student stated

during the discussion that plants in the dark get nutrients from the soil

109

and water, but the sun gives extra nutrients, there is no evidence that Ben
incorporated it into his conceptual framework at this point. A conjecture
put forth by Ben during this lesson was that “plants switched from the dark
to the light will begin to turn green.” He appears to have at this point be-
come aware of the importance of the presence of light to the color of plants
being green (see Figure 11). Ben viewed light as an alternative source of
nutrients, as providing “extra” nutrients, which may have laid the
groundwork for what came in lesson 5.5.

At the beginning of the task in Lesson 5.5 where students were to dis-
cuss their observations and make interpretations, the teacher focused the
discussion on plants started in the light and kept in the light. After the dis-
cussion shifted to plants taken from the dark and placed in the light, a stu-
dent suggested that plants which had been switched from the dark to the
light turned green because of the sun. Ben suggested that “the sun gives it
the extra food and nutrients it needs to get back the normal color of any
other plant.”

Ben had come to believe in a connection between the color of plants
and the presence of light based upon the empirical evidence observed dur-
ing the observation phase of this and earlier lessons. To this point, Ben had
made no reference to chlorophyll. After Ben’s comment John offered the
view that plants produce chlorophyll. John suggested that the plant can not
produce chlorophyll without the sun, and that the chlorophyll is the green.
The teacher repeats John’s assertion later in the discussion and this pro-
vides another point at which Ben can consider the alternatives. In an
interview following this lesson Ben gives evidence of a belief in the making

of chlorophyll as a mechanism by which plants remain green in light (see

a: ZOr—LmOZOO BEG: Q72 @9245 m6 ZOmmmAAmmm .2 gnu—h

 

Anson—“>533 mcosauseocow Eur—55m— .-\\\s
once—3°5— »ocm II'

 

eon—A

 

 

110

 

 

 

 

 

  
     

 

 

3%....
833
nu ma..—
\ .33.. Vflmezmafigw
amt“. .. .
hmmagwm 3...... v. 3w:
85:53.89 \\
.83.. “x
532:: flue—3

 

 

 

m2 _ \“ VQZ<TV .38....

 

 

3338.. cocoa—Emcee s... \
uCQMG 30b"
4 Eons

 

 

Véumll

 

111

Figure 12). Thus, Ben apparently integrated this knowledge into his
previous structure.

At this point it became evident that Ben realized plants need chloro-
phyll to be green. This is an important feature of this intermediate state of
knowledge. This may have been the result of his encounter with the em-
pirical evidence that plants need light to be green in conjunction with in-
formation content provided by other students, and reiterated by the teacher,
in Lesson 5.5. With this relationship firmly developed he was able to make
the inference that if chlorophyll is necessary for plants to be green then the
light must be influential in its production by the plant.

It was the relationship developed in Lesson 5.5 which leads to the
inclusion of chlorophyll in Ben’s framework. The empirical evidence that
plants in the dark are not green and plants in the light are green along
with the reference to chlorophyll by John leads to the assertion, during
clinical interview three, that chlorophyll makes plants green. With the
relationship of light to color he then apparently inferred the relationship
between light and chlorophyll.

Thus, the idea of the plants being green and its relationship to light
developed from empirical evidence. The inclusion of chlorophyll was the
result of an assertion by a student during instruction which gave him the
basis for an explanation in the form of a mechanism which resolved his
sense making process.

During Lesson 5.6 while the students were involved in a discussion of
their observations, Ben encountered the finding that plants moved from the
dark to the light had changed from yellow to green. His observations dur-
ing this period led him to conclude that plants kept in the dark will remain
the same. In his view, they could not get much yellower than they already

112

m<2 ZOELHOZOO EEGS Q72 mag/24m m.m 20mmm—Aém0m .Nu gay—r.—

 

 

mmoE cohouczoucm li'v
$333. 5... IV

 

 

\
amaze J9

mag/QEK

 

3338..

 

80%

@uhn—Om

.8523

SA

 

nu ma:

.4...

mEZHHMEHZW

 

D

 

am?

oocoacomcoo

gamma

 

 

V E6:

3%..

        

550:3 .

“8.3..

5985a

  

395

3555350

 

 

 

gamma

m®

 

113

were. His assertion provides evidence that at this point he does not see the
lack of chlorophyll as being life threatening. ‘

The discussion during Lesson 5.10, the last devoted to describing the
results of the four-plot experiment, was concerned with the condition of
plants in the dark as opposed to those in the light. As the students de-
scribed the results of their experiment, a student proposed that plants in
the dark were losing food because plants make food out of sunlight. Early
in the next task, the purpose of which was the interpretation of results, Ben
stated that “light gives the plant the food it needs to produce the
chlorophyll.” Another student then said “light gives the plant nourishment
and makes it green, and green looks more healthy.” The outcome of this
discussion was that plants in the light are green and healthy while plants
in the dark are yellow.

Additional statements made during this discussion suggests that
while several students had incorporated light into their conception of food
for plants, misconceptions continued to persist. While one student stated
that “plants turn light into food,” another indicated that “plants need light
because light feeds them.”

W. Throughout the period involving Chapter 5 Ben
continued to maintain his preconception of food for plants as water,
fertilizer, and light. The major change in Ben’s knowledge was the addi-
tion of chlorophyll to the conceptual framework. It is near the end of
Chapter 5 that Ben asserted the importance of chlorophyll for plants. He
viewed chlorophyll as a green substance that plants make and which then
makes the plant green. While consequences were referred to; processes

were not specified when given the opportunity. During the fourth clinical

114

interview he was asked to explain how the light makes the plant make

chlorophyll. Ben responded:

I don’t know, how it helps it make it. All I know is it needs the
light to make the chlorophyll."

Although a student verbalized the belief, during Lesson 5.5, that
“plants in the dark will soon die,” it was not reflected in Ben’s post-Lesson
5.5 conception (see Figure 12), but was after Lesson 5.10 (see Figure 13). It
appears that Ben’s observation of his group’s set-up did not, however, lead
him to infer this since both of the set-ups observed by Ben’s group were in
the light. Apparently, it was teacher and student comments as well as any
observation made of the plants of other groups during task 3 of Lesson 5.6
and task 2 of Lesson 5.10 which influenced this change.

Early in Clinical Interview 4, which followed Lesson 6.2, it became
clear that Ben views light as a source of nutrients. While he indicates that
these nutrients are used to produce chlorophyll it is not clear as to whether
he believes chlorophyll has any function beyond making the plant green.

However, the knowledge asserted near the end of instruction is re-
flected in Ben’s new affirmation of chlorophyll as what makes plants green.
This is further elaborated as he indicates the plants need for chlorophyll
and in terms of consequences an awareness of the importance of light for a
plant’s color and to sustain its life. Ben states that light is important

because:

it gives the plants the extra nutrients it needs to produce the
chlorophyll and without the chlorophyll the stems will die out
because of lack of food, so the whole plant will die because the
grass is all stems.

115

o
..
u 2.02.
I O
. ...x\ .1...
.. \ -.
. ..
u \ \‘fiib‘bfiioo ‘7
I “‘.““‘ ‘ «“““‘~“‘~“““.““~‘.. “‘-“““ .“‘~‘.“.
m \ :o_._c=o\\MSOE—3a .33 q...
n u o.‘\\.‘\\\\ . o.
.. _
\\.\§\!§\\ooos c\§!\.“\!‘o.« u
‘ “““““'““.““I““.““‘.“‘. .‘
oo§|Q\\‘\\\§oo oo§\\\‘§fifi\ .0
M 000$ «OOOIbbbbb §\!\\ 6.05- oso .
n 3. 3...: 2.3 \ an... ... . .33..
a .0. . 9. .
“ .... . ... .
a . ”, C””””’,””””,”’, 0’,
. 2.... .2 ...,”... ...,...
. .
M a... AVA .\ 3.3-... =3
.x ..a... -

g ZOELQOZOOEWOQ 9263 D72 $5.24... ..2 EDGE—

 

325.50

.1...

.83 33:32... .1...

.22....83 2823.136 1.5.5..

.‘V\\

83.6.... 3.... IV

 

 

~\.

\~..

 

 
  

 

:aioufigu

.“““"“ ““““.0

02.30.. l

 

 

        

     

 

 

 

:3.-

..3.

 

V
..“““““‘..‘ B‘“““““.“..“‘.‘.‘..“.““.‘..“““\\

a

.83..

 

 

 

5592

Eon-

116

He goes on to state that soil is important because:

it has nutrients to start it to sprout but it can’t continue to
grow without the light because it has to make chlorophyll for it
to keep its color and stay alive.

He views plants having food as contingent upon the presence of chlorophyll
which is dependent upon the plant having light. Moreover, it is the chloro-
phyll which gives the plant its color and upon which it is dependent in
order to stay alive. However, this is the only reference to food as anything
other than raw materials or something absorbed from them.

W- The group data shows a
shifting of conceptions. Fifty percent of the students who prior to instruc-
tion believed plants would not grow in the dark changed their conception to
believing light is desirable, but that plants would grow in the light or dark
(see Figure 14). Ben was unsure whether plants would grow in the dark
prior to instruction. The qualitative data does not reflect a view on the part
of Ben that light is essential for plant growth until after the fifth lesson of
Chapter 5. Unlike the group Ben became committed to plants need for light
in order to grow (i.e., live).

It is interesting to note that forty percent of those who prior to
instruction believed light to be essential to live and grow changed their be-
lief system and asserted that light was not needed by the plant (see Figure
15), while thirty-three percent were found after instruction to believe that
light was needed for the health and color of the plant. These students’
thinking actually moved further from the goal conception for the unit.

117

$575 Ema. Zn EEOGU Egan kc mZOr—kgmxnm fi>~fi<zmmfid< .v— Ema—~—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alb..8m 308.....— “Mm
:3
513 =3 :5— vguuue .05.. 850..) 85: 5.8“ Ea... 35.. Ba: 18.. 3..
.85.. .8 . E .35.. a 853:. 3 a . c a
.28.... ._ 2....— pc .3... .58 .. .. ._ .. ._ no... i 83.53...
93...... 0333 {as so Eu: 5 380 02.82. in: 5 2.3 395 {at 5 395 {as 5 :95 3: 2.83
a a. a a z 8 o a o. o. a a 8 8 c a.
. v . a a .. o . m a . . .. .. o ._
S o 9 a
2 «— 1
a a. a .. u v
, i
a o. a. a
I ,.
com a— c
a 3 h
, i ,. i , W 1 ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.ESGB m8 Dmmz mPij .mO 95H; Err—RENE: .3 gnu—..—

 

 

 

118

8..
809.85 .896...— 5%
8.8.8 3...» 90.8 .8 8.8 :55 B85 .8
22.5 8 .38.. 5.8.. 8. 8 2... s 18. a. 85.. 25:... 8 3.8.. .51.... 8. 3 2... s ..8. a. 85.532
.85.. .00.... 8.. 033.25 pence-um 13.83".— .uoo: 8.. 039:3 7:..o3m 73.83".—
O O O i
O O O .—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

119

The change in Ben’s knowledge which was of interest in this case
was the addition of photosynthesis to his conceptual framework. Although
he asserted the importance of photosynthesis near the end of Chapter 6, the
evidence for this change and his assertions concerning the concept directed
attention toward his apparent idiosyncratic concept of the nature of
photosynthesis.

Wm. Evidence for Ben’s preconceptions were obtained
from the clinical interview three which preceded the “invention” of
photosynthesis as well as instruction for Chapter 6, and page ten from the
student manual in which students predicted the outcome of the bean plant
experiment which was set-up following Lesson 5.5. Note that this
preconception precedes the postconception of Case 2 as a result of the initial
lesson concerned with photosynthesis being conducted prior to the final
lesson included in Case 2.

Ben’s conceptual framework at this point seemed to be built around
the importance of light (see Figure 16). His conception of light is that it pro-
vides plants with nutrients; it is a source of food. There is no evidence at
this point that he believes plants make their food. Food for plants is some-
thing external, something taken in, and consists of nutrients in the air,
soil, light, and water taken in by the plant.

Prior to beginning the activities of Chapter 6 Ben asserted that the
function of light is to provide the food nutrients to make the chlorophyll. He
also believed that plants need chlorophyll to be green. He believes that to be
green plants must produce chlorophyll and this requires taking in nutri-

ents from ultraviolet rays. This reference to ultraviolet rays occurred

m<E ZOHEHUZOOm—mm GOOh QZ< mEZEA .3 mam—DUE—

 

\ ...,... 4.

 

 

 

 

          

 

 

 

...fieozu

mmmoavx
2.3399.

 

 

 

 

5395 g ‘ 803..
3 é .
:3 oo— .: J as as:
E mazmaé
.355 o a
$930.... ‘1 oaslv. .52..
oo— Epc .
so...
.325 ‘l

 

 

3.3.53.3“. J
m.@

 

 

121

during Clinical Interview 3 when in reference to his belief that plants in the
dark would grow he stated that:

.. it isn’t the light that makes it grow, it’s the ultraviolet
sources in the sunlight that makes it grow and makes the
chlorophyll it isn’t the light its the ultraviolet rays that con-
tain the nutrients to help the plants to produce chlorophyll.

He apparently thought that the plants in the dark could somehow
obtain ultraviolet rays (unfortunately this was not probed further).
The key point seems to be that sunlight is important in plants pro-
duction of chlorophyll.

The evidence indicates that Ben did not see a lack of chlorophyll as
preventing plants from living. He believes, based upon assertions during
Clinical Interview 3, that grass plants which were started in the dark and

remained in the dark will:

keep growing except they’re going to stay yellowish-white.
And they’re just going to keep growing like normal plants ex-
cept they’re going to be a different color.

It appears at this point that Ben sees chlorophyll as something which
makes the plant green but that it is not the material which makes the plant
grow.

In summary, it appears that at this point Ben believes that the func~
tion of light is the provision of nutrients which are needed to produce
chlorophyll. At this point he also asserts the importance of light to the color
of the plant. Here he also asserts that the consequence of the presence of
chlorophyll is the plant being green.

WW. During task four of Lesson 5.10 the
teacher stated that “plants use the energy from sunlight with the water and
air to produce food.” She then went on to “invent” the concept of

photosynthesis; a step suggested in the Teachers Guide where the teacher

provides the children with an idea (e.g., concept) for interpreting what they
had observed. In this case the teacher suggested to the students that plants
use the energy from sunlight with the water and air to produce food.
Reference was then made to this process being called photosynthesis and
the teacher then interpreted the derivation of the word by stating “photo
means light” and “synthesis means putting together.” She then asked a
student to interpret what she had said. The student she selected to respond
indicated that “photosynthesis means putting the air, water, and light
together to make food.”

She then moved on to clarify the relationship of plants and food by
suggesting to the students that “plants have two sources of food.” She asked
what these two sources might be to which a student replied “plants two
sources of food are light and the cotyledon.” During this exchange, in re-
sponse to a statement made by the teacher, Ben indicates that “the making
and putting together light, air, and the water is called photosynthesis.”
Here photosynthesis seems to be viewed as the m of these raw
materials.

During instruction in chapter six Ben observed a four-plot experi-
ment using bean plants. This involved bean plants in the light with and
without cotyledons, and bean plants in the dark with and without
cotyledons. The plants were measured and the results recorded over a pe-
riod of several weeks.

The intent of this experiment was to have the students apply the pho-
tosynthesis concept as an explanation of the phenomena they observed. The
observations and discussions provided for a reinforcement of the ideas
which were introduced previously (i.e., the cotyledon is food for the young

plant and plants make their food using the process of photosynthesis).

123

Prior to having the students set up the experiment the teacher initi-
ated a discussion aimed at reviewing the results of earlier experiments.
The teacher asks that they discuss the assertion that “the embryo grows
when the cotyledon is attached to it.” Ben agrees as does most of the class.
Although this had been asserted by students in Lesson 4.7, this was the first
assertion of this point by the teacher.

It was during Lesson 6.2 of the instructional sequence that “to live”
becomes a consequence of needing light for Ben. Previously (in task 3 of
Lesson 5.6 during the grass experiment) he had asserted that plants in the
dark would be different than those in the light only in color. As the discus-
sion continued in Lesson 6.2 a student stated that “bean plants without a
cotyledon will grow in the light because it will have photosynthesis.”
Another student went on to say that “plants without cotyledons placed in the
dark will die.” Ben was seen to agree with the assertion as did most class.

At this point in the instructional sequence Ben continued to believe
that soil provides nutrients the plant needs to live. His view that light is an
important factor which influences plant growth has been expanded; with-
out light the plants will eventually die. When asked his beliefs, during
Clinical Interview 4, concerning what would happen to grass planted and
then covered with a pail, Ben stated that “it would die off because of lack of
light.” Further into the discussion he states that light is important

because:

it gives the plants the extra nutrients it needs to produce the
chlorophyll and without the chlorophyll the stems will die out
because of lack of food,

Ben’s interpretive mental system concerning light and plants includes the

belief that the function of light is to provide the nutrients needed in the

production of chlorophyll, which results in the plant being green. At this
point his view of the importance of light for the plant is built around color
and the view that without chlorophyll the plant will die (see Figure 17).

The discussion in Clinical Interview 4 aimed at probing Ben’s hy-
pothesis concerning the experimental conditions of Chapter 6 exposed a
change in his conception of the function of the cotyledon. He believes that
the beans that are in the dark but still have the cotyledons will “keep grow-
ing until the cotyledon is all used up and then they are going to start to die".

His explanation for this view is that:

...the cotyledon is the food that starts it to grow and after it has
started growing it has to use all of the other resources, but they
don’t get all of the resources they need in the dark, so they die.

The above provides evidence that Ben now considers light to be important
for plant life. Plants in his view, must have light in addition to other re-
sources in order to live. He also asserts at this point that the cotyledon is
food for the plant.

It is apparent that while he believes plants make chlorophyll, food for
plants continues to be something they take in. There is no evidence that he
believes plants make their food, however, there is evidence that he has in-
ternalized a concept of photosynthesis as a mixture of light, air, and water.

Following the measurement task during Lesson 6.4, the teacher re-
quested that students respond to the question of which plants in the light
had made the most growth. As the students discussed their observations,
Ben indicated that the “plants in the light without the cotyledon have shown
the most growth.” Another student made the conjecture that “bean plants
with the cotyledon grow the most because the cotyledon gives the plant

food.” The discussion continued with the teacher not attempting to probe

2:6 :83. 9.35:8
E... v... .832 3 .8...— ouaE 3:9..33» one... 2. =2: 2. v 33>..ch .8250 «5.5.. BEES“...
955 :9... woman a. as... 38:8 at...» £52 EHOZOO GOO... QZ< 2.724.. mesa—HEMBZ— .5 556—.—

Eeancoo 3%..

 

once—Beam 6......— IV.

50%—
«830 2.09. d
..o 0.39.. ; . I I!.'
g $135395 v _ 9?an
>
2.99.
.83..
acoma

 

 

 

   

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

student responses and focusing the attention of the students upon plants in
light. Despite several opportunities for the comparison of conflicting stu-
dent responses or of experimental conditions in the light, the conflicting re-
sponses were not challenged and the differing experimental conditions
were not pursued. This form of discussion resulted in a “collection” of re-
sponses with no focus and a tendency to lead to confusion.

At one point in the discussion the teacher did ask the students for an
explanation in terms of “why have plants with the cotyledon made more
growth?” This was followed by a student stating that “plants with the
cotyledon in the light have double food or have more food. The bean plants
without the cotyledon only have photosynthesis.” However, she did not pur-
sue this student’s underlying rationale nor the perception of the other stu-
dents regarding this view of food and plants.

The teacher then turned attention to the plants in the dark; pursuing
this in the same manner as the discussion about plant growth in the light.
As the discussion shifted a student hypothesized that plants in the dark
without the cotyledon had not grown as much because they had no source of
food. Another student, in response to a question posed by the teacher, as-
serts that “plants must be exposed to some light in order to grow.”

The investigation continued with the measuring and recording of
plant height. During a discussion in Lesson 6.6 Ben encountered the
assertion that bean plants in the light have photosynthesis so they do not
need to keep the cotyledon. This provides evidence that, for this student,
there is a realization that for photosynthesis you must have light. As the
discussion continues another student asserts that “the cotyledon feeds the
embryo and after the cotyledon is gone the plant then gets the food from the

sun, air, and water.”

It is during the next lesson, as the students measure and record the
height of their bean plants, that Ben states that those “in the light without
the cotyledon will grow because without the cotyledon it would use
photosynthesis.” After the students had completed the task of recording
their measurements, the teacher asked that they describe what they had
seen. Many in the classroom agreed with one student’s statement that
“plants in the light are the healthier and are growing stronger.” Another
student observed that the “bean plants in the dark with the cotyledon have
got some height while the ones without the cotyledon did not grow much.”

The discussion which followed focused upon the interpretation of the
observations. While one student suggested that plants in the dark will
eventually die because they have no light, Ben states that plants get food
from the soil. In addition, he asserts that soil has food in it and the plant
takes it out. However, when the teacher states that plants have two sources
of food, Ben responds by saying that the two sources of food for the plant are
the cotyledon and photosynthesis. Ben picks up on the teachers interpreta-
tion (i.e., “sources of food”) and refers to an object and a process; an object in
terms of the cotyledon and a process in terms of the action of mixing
nutrients. The teacher then comments that “soil provides for deficiencies
by providing minerals and vitamins plants need to grow,” to which Ben
agreed.

The completion of the bean plant experiment was followed by the
teacher asking the students to complete the brainteaser in their student
manual. The student manual page, with a drawing of a bat flying into a
dark and apparently abandoned mine, posed the questions, “If the bat flew
into the mine and several seeds fell out of its fur and began to grow in the

moist mine, would the plants survive?” and “Explain why?” The purpose of

this activity was to give the teacher an opportunity to ascertain the level of
understanding the students had of the concept of photosynthesis.

Once the students had completed the task the teacher initiated a
discussion. During this discussion a student suggested that “plants at the
back of the cave will not have light and will not live because they do not have
photosynthesis.” As the discussion continued another student stated that
“light is just an extra part of photosynthesis.” Yet another student re-
sponded that “even if plants need photosynthesis, two out of three isn’t bad.
This is another appearance of the mixture view with some clarification of
consequences. An analogy is a tossed salad without tomatos; it’s better
with tomatos, but still nourishing without them.

Following the statement by a fellow classmate that ”plants in the cave
will grow but will not be healthy“, Ben again acknowledged that plants will
die without light when he said “plants in the dark will grow but will not
survive.” It was shortly after this that the teacher initiated a discussion of
plant needs. During this discussion it was asserted by one student that
plants need photosynthesis to live. Another student followed by saying that
“plants need light, water, and air to live.” When Ben followed this state-
ment by asserting that air is part of photosynthesis, he appeared to once
again be using a mixture view of photosynthesis rather than the process
view.

W. The knowledge asserted following the completion of
Chapter 6 reflects Ben’s new affirmation of photosynthesis as a source of
food for the plant. This is further elaborated as he indicates during Clinical
Interview 6 that photosynthesis is the “getting together” of food sources for
the plant. He states:

129

It is water, air, and light all going in and getting together, cause
photo means light and synthesis means combining air and water, so
when you do that all three of those are food sources for plants. When
it is in the dark it can’t have photosynthesis because it only has air
and water.

It is a process in which the food sources for the plant are combined; an
action involving the mixing of food sources. The evidence indicates that he
seems to believe that photosynthesis is a mixture of water, air, and light;
that it is “stuff,” not a process involving change (see Figure 18).

Ben continues to believe food for plants is something they take in.
What is taken in is nutrients from the soil, air, water and light. He also
continues to believe that the role of light is to provide plants with the extra
nutrients needed to make chlorophyll. He views plants as needing chloro-
phyll to be green and to live. This has followed out of the empirical evidence
that plants need light to be green.

The central change for Ben during chapter six was his inclusion of
photosynthesis in his conceptual framework. While the concept of photo-
synthesis was “invented” at the conclusion of chapter five following the
grass experiment; it was not until Lesson 6.7 that Ben began to use the con-
cept to explain phenomena he had observed. His view of food for plants
continued throughout this period to be formed around raw materials
(water, fertilizer, air, and light) which contain nutrients that plants take
in. However, attention is focused on Ben’s idiosyncratic conception of the
nature of photosynthesis.

His addition of photosynthesis seems to involve a view similar to that
which he developed for the cotyledon feeding the plant; a mechanism for
transmitting food. He does not view plants as making their food, but rather

as engaging in a taking in process and “putting together”; there is no

3.5:...me mam—owofiosgma
2.... ..c 5583.583 5395.35-32. 65 ..o 31.8.. o... mm. :25 2. .b.@ :88. m...
-325. v.8 mini. 33... EcoSSSm one... .m 26.23.: 1.8.50 9:2... BaoEBSm
whom Ex... cums; m. as... 38:8 $55 552 EHUZOU ZOEODMBQAOBQE .2 EOE

 

 

use... 19.3....Oocm 13v
omen—305m 3...... I'

2.285....
.3...

 

 

 

.83..

     
   

 

no...»

OOH—don
2...

 

   

cocoa—.35..

 

=bfi9829
gamma

2on

 

5.52.5

 

 

 

 

VW—Zdwumh

acomm

131

change in materials. Thus, the function of photosynthesis is in terms of the
role of each of the mixed elements.

W- The group data shows
that most of the students (62%), including Ben, were unsure prior to
instruction as to whether plants make their food (see Figure 19). Few
students (14%) believed that plants make their food while 24% of the subjects
held to the belief that plants do not make their food. Eighty-one percent of
the subjects, including Ben, believed that plants take in their food.

Following instruction those believing that plants make their food in-
creased to forty—eight percent. Most of those who held this belief (60% of
those believing plants make food) were unsure prior to instruction. Twenty-
three percent of those who were unsure prior to instruction, including Ben,
came to believe plants do not make their food.

It is interesting to note that prior to instruction those who believed
plants make their food were not aware of the importance of light; they re-
sponded that plants make food in light or dark (see Figure 20). Following
instruction only one of these students conceptualized the importance of
light. Only one student showed evidence of believing that plants make their
own food using light, air, and water.

Wham

The selection of three conceptual changes identified in Phase I which
were thought to merit further study was followed by an analysis which was
revealed in the previous sections. The preceding analysis of those changes
focused upon the description of classroom occurrences, as well as teacher
and student actions, emphasizing those aspects of instruction which were
identified as being directly relevant to those changes identified in Phase I.

Each case focused upon the instructional activities associated with one of

6.33252: .33 v.3 9.83 v8. .0» 3......—
39— v9.3? .353... 88.320 3...— ..32? «2.5 .909m .35 @9245 3cm .5 95m; §F<meah< .3 Edna—..—

 

 

 

 

 

3.58
.8941... .3595 Sun—
! ~. 1 s I» s a: I.» 5 IS a IA k a: 5
can... .8 18..
”.33.. £8 a: a: p s la la Iva in Us! a: a: s a In ’a la 0...... .35..—
c C $
0 o h

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

390% 02% gm DZ< 9303 .m0 m>5=> §g<zmmah< .8 gnu—..—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8..
.832... 59.2.. Sumo.
at... {an
..8. .. c. 8 ..5 .9... 5.3 we. ..8. .. ...8 as. 2.... .3... 1..
can... {no 5 Eu: 5 . ...n .2 .- o a... 5 ..a J
«5...... 932:. 8.2% can... all: can... 9:... can... Hem-3... 952... 8:: on swung... any... 0A.... 9.2.... ”an”: 8.5.33;
. a V“ O- VN 2 . a . 8 v“ a 2 c O 3
. a a u a a . a o o .
a a ..
h D D
a. a. o
8 a. ..
v— w
a . fl , a. , ,
a v—
! ,
8..
O—
2
Q—
a—
8
a
i v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the identified conceptual changes in an effort to expose relevant patterns
and regularities.

MW. Ben possessed descriptive and explanatory
systems for the scientific phenomena which was the focus of the instruc-
tional unit before experiencing the formal study of the subject. Prior to in-
struction Ben viewed food for plants to be various external raw materials
including light. Based upon knowledge asserted during Clinical Interview
1 and the responses given on the pretest the following propositional knowl-

edge was part of Ben’s framework.

12: Plants (do not) make food.
KL: Plants (do not) make their own food in (light).
MK: Plants (do) take in their food from (soil).
01: Food for plants (is) (water, fertilizer, soil,
light, minerals, air, vitamins, nutrients).
OK: Food for plants (is) (water).
OL: Food for plants (is) (fertilizer).
00: Food for plants (is) (light).
OT: Food for plants (is) (air).

There was evidence that Ben believed that fertilizer is food for plants.
He indicated that fertilizer is food for plants but then elaborated that “seeds
absorb fertilizer from sunlight, soil, manufactured fertilizer, decomposed
objects, and water.” Thus, he believed plants get this food from the soil,
light, water, organic matter, and manufactured fertilizer.

Notable by its absence in interview one was any mention of food com-
ing from or being stored in the seed; he did not bring it up in the interview
despite several opportunities. The important insight at this point is that
Ben believed plants get something from these materials. In his view the
raw materials are a source of “nutrients.”

Ben’s preconceptions of what constitutes food for plants involved ex-

ternal raw materials. These materials (water, light, etc.) are the sources of

something (“fertilizer” or “nutrients”) used by the plant to live and grow.
These materials are “taken in” or as Ben referred to it “absorbed.” His
conception of light was that it provides plants with nutrients; it is a source
of food. Food for plants is something external, something taken in, and
consists of nutrients in the air, soil, light, and water taken in by the plant.

W. The focus of this section is to describe
and apply a theoretical model of conceptual change in an effort to provide a
framework which can guide further conceptual change analysis. The
importance of a theory to guide the inferential process has been argued
previously (Lott, 1980a). Experience can not be described independently of
theory because what counts as experience is necessarily theory dependent.

The view of conceptual change. pr0posed by Posner, Strike, Hewson,
and Gertzog (1982) places an emphasis upon the interaction between the
subject’s internal processing of information and the encounter with the
environment. It considers the environmental context as well as the
intentions of the teacher and student to be important factors in the
reconciliation of internal conceptual conflicts. It is within this context that
they argue that “a new conception is unlikely to displace an old one, unless
the old one encounters difficulties, and a new intelligible and initially
plausible conception is available that resolves these difficulties” (p. 220).

The view of the teaching-learning process which results from the
adoption of this model of conceptual change reflects the epistemological and
theoretical principles reviewed in Chapter 2. It suggests four conditions
that must be fulfilled if students are to make changes in their conceptual
framework:

' there must be dissatisfaction with existing conceptions,

0 a new conception must be intelligible,

0 a new conception must be initially plausible, and
° a new conception must appear fruitful (i.e., lead to new insights and
discoveries).

The model requires more of the teacher than simply the occasioning and
structuring of content. Moreover, the student is required to go beyond the
apprehension of the information content and its integration into the con-
ceptual framework and must produce a way to deal with the incongruous
situation. The model accepts the argument by Magoon (1977) in which the
teacher and students are seen as “purposive agents whose thoughts, plans,
perceptions, and intentions influence their behavior and moderate the ef-
fects of behavior” (p. 652).

The nature of the encounter between Ben’s preconception of food for
plants and the information content of the learning experiences is the first
point of interest in the effort to compare the actual results with what might
be expected if the model was applied to the literal program. The literal pro-
gram indicates that the teacher will occasion discussions aimed at report-
ing the empirical observations of the students. The patterns thus exposed
are used to influence the subjects to justify their current conceptions in the
light of the encountered evidence and where necessary reconcile conflicting
conceptions.

It is predicted that Ben’s involvement in the learning experiences
where he reviews his conceptual framework in the light of new evidence
will result in several changes or alterations in his conceptual framework.
Based upon the model, these changes will be influenced by the interaction of
environmental factors such as teacher and student acts within the frame-
work provided by the learning experiences and the internal reconciliation

processes of the student. This will have begun with the teacher occasioning

a discussion directed at having the students’ interpret the evidence gained
from their grass experiment. It is this episode in the instructional se-
quence which will make public the alternative frameworks used by the stu-
dents in response to what Nussbaum and Novick (1982) refer to as an
“exposing event” (p. 4). This event consisted of the response of plants to the
experimental set-up for Chapter 5 where it is observed that those plants
grown in light continue to live while those in the dark eventually die. A
network representation of Ben’s knowledge structure concerning plants
and food, based upon the application of the model, is given in Figure 21.

The conceptual framework representation shown by Figure 21
provides evidence that several aspects of Ben’s preconceptions have been
altered. In activity nine of Chapter ~5 the teacher through her questioning
enables Ben to make “an imaginative leap which enables a new way of
thinking about a problem to take place” (Driver and Easley, 1978, p. 80).
This leads to Ben’s falsification of two frames; one concerning where plants
get there food and the other regarding what food is for plants. As a result
Ben changes his conceptual framework through the addition of the network
involving photosynthesis.

It would be expected that MK (plants do take in their food from the
soil) would be rejected in exchange for MA (plants do not take in their food
from the soil). This would be the consequence of the encounter with the ev-'
idence regarding the growth of seed parts in the germination system. Ben
observed that the embryo and cotyledon as well as the whole seed grew
while placed on a piece of blotter paper. This experimental environment
and his internal mental search for consistency would lead him to the

“exchange” of propositional knowledge.

  

organic
matter

   

 

   

fertilizer

   

 

 

function

 

 

s. ........... .1 é,
% {AN}; V
3:... fix
something -
”E, made cotyledon

 

 

 

 

 

ginput
.4
{ANS}: Pre-instruction
‘ . conceptual map
. g «QM Anticipated
311' water light Changes

 

FIGURE 21. BEN’S ANTICIPATED POST-INSTRUCTION CONCEPT MAP.

In addition, OL (food for plants is fertilizer) and 00 (food for plants is
light) will be rejected in exchange for OI (food for plants is the cotyledon)
and OJ (food for plants is something made). The realization that plants do
not get their food from the soil would lead Ben to adopt the proposition that
the cotyledon is food for the plant. His observations of grass growth under
varying conditions would provide a contradiction of frame 0L and in con-
junction with the classroom discussions in which he has participated he
accepts the teachers’ explanation.

Moreover, these “conceptual exchanges” (Hewson, 1981) will have re-
sulted from the addition of frame K and L alternatives KA (plants do make
their own food) and LA (plants do use light to make food). The inclusion of
these frames could be expected as the result of Ben finding that his precon-
ceptions concerning where plants get food and what food is for plants are
not “fruitful” (Hewson, 1981); they do not explain the observations he has
made of grass growth in the light or dark. His application of the proposi-
tional knowledge put forth by the teacher as an explanation in lesson 5.10
could be found by Ben to have internal consistency when the negation of
several frames is internalized. This in conjunction with the teachers’
“invention” of photosynthesis would provide a fruitful conception; one
which can be used to explain the outcome of the grass experiment.

This exposure to other students’ interpretive frameworks in con-
junction with the teacher’s probes concerning the function of light for
plants and food for plants would activate certain frames or cognitive struc-
tures on the part of Ben. His attempt to reconcile these activated frames
with what he is experiencing would bring about a conceptual conflict

involving the frames M and O. The teacher’s skillful probes using student

140

alternative frameworks along with empirical and theoretical evidence
would lead to Ben’s restructuring his interpretive framework.

The application of this model to the sequence. of events as described in
the literal program would be expected to result in Ben’s having a concep-
tual framework as represented in Figure 21. However, it was observed that
throughout the period of instruction the students continued to maintain
their preconceptions of food for plants. A review of Ben’s postconceptions in
contrast to his preconceptions reveals that he has experienced a transfor-
mation of conceptual framework. Yet that modification of conceptual
structure involved what Hewson (1981) has referred to as “conceptual
capture” as opposed to a “conceptual exchange.” The concepts present in
the preconception representation have been retained yet with the addition of
several new concepts (e.g., cotyledon, chlorophyll and photosynthesis) the
relationships have not been changed.

The preconception of food for plants was not displaced but was reor-
ganized to include a mechanism for the absorption of food, a substance for
making the plant green, and a process for the mixing of food sources (cf.,
Figure 19). As a basis for further analysis, at a level of detail sufficient to
discover why the expected changes were not observed, the following sections
are intended as a review of Ben’s experiences of instruction.

Won. During a classroom discussion in les-
son 4.4 Ben encountered, as the result of a hypothesis verbalized by a stu-
dent, the information that the cotyledon provides food for the plant. This
was offered by the student in the context of a question in reference to the
embryo and whether the cotyledon would grow. The student response was

that the cotyledon would not grow, it would “give it (i.e., the embryo) food to

grow.

141

During the next two lessons which followed he encountered the idea
that the cotyledon provides food for the embryo. However, this idea would
not be in direct conflict with his preconception concerning food for plants.
His preconception of food for plants was that it consists of external materi-
als which are “absorbed” by the plant. All of these sources except soil were
present during the germination experiment. The observation of the embryo
growth when attached to a cotyledon necessitated only that he add to his
conceptual framework an object, the cotyledon, through which food could be
absorbed. Thus, the observations during the experiment were apparently
not problematic and did not challenge the “central concepts” (Posner, et al.,
1982) of Ben’s conceptual framework.

The teacher consistently referred to seed parts rather than experi-
mental conditions; increasing the potential for confusion (i.e., was a refer-
ence being made to the cotyledon alone, or the cotyledon attached to the
embryo). This continued the ambiguity of reference as to whether the
teacher was alluding to the attached cotyledon as a part of a condition, or
the condition consisting of a separate cotyledon.

Throughout the period involving Chapter 5 Ben continued to main-
tain his preconception of food for plants as water, fertilizer, and light. The
central change for Ben during chapter five was his addition of chlorophyll
to his conceptual framework as something plants need. This need is in or-
der to have food. It was during this period that Ben developed the belief that
plants make chlorophyll and the role of light in this process is to provide
extra nutrients. What is taken in is nutrients from the soil and light.
There is no indication as to whether chlorophyll is needed to make food or to
absorb and transmit food. The consequence is evident (to be green and to

live), but the function is not.

142

Ben’s focus on the height during Lesson 5.4 led him to conclude that
“plants in the dark grew well because they got nutrients and the food they
needed from other sources than the sun.” He suggested that plants in the
dark get food from water and fertilizer whereas in the light they get their
food from light in addition to water and fertilizer.

The discussion during Lesson 5.10, the purpose of which was the in-
terpretation of results, Ben stated that “light gives the plant the food it needs
to produce the chlorophyll.” Additional statements made during this dis-
cussion suggests that while several students had incorporated light into
their conception of food for plants, misconceptions continued to persist.
While one student stated that “plants turn light into food,” another indi-
cated that “plants need light because light feeds them.”

It was at this point that the observational evidence suggested that Ben
now considers light to be important for plant life. Plants in his view, must
have light in addition to other resources in order to live. He also asserted at
this point that the cotyledon is food for the plant.

It was apparent following the “invention” of photosynthesis that
while he believes plants make chlorophyll, food for plants continued to be
something they take in. In particular, he asserted that soil has food in it
and the plant takes it out. There was no evidence that he believes plants
make their food, however, when the teacher stated that plants have two
sources of food, Ben responded by saying that the two sources of food for the
plant are the cotyledon and photosynthesis. Moreover, there was evidence
that he had internalized a concept of photosynthesis as a mixture of light,
air, and water. He stated during the classroom discussion that “the mak-

ing and putting together light, air, and the water is called photosynthesis.”

143

Thus, he appeared to once again be using a mixture view of photosynthesis
rather than the process view.

' W. In each case study the central change was an
addition to Ben’s conceptual framework. His preconceptions persisted de-
spite instruction on scientific theories that contradicted them.
Discrepancies between Ben’s post-instruction conceptions and the scientific
theories taught often represent important failures of instruction. The re-
search suggests that preconceptions actively compete with scientific alter-
natives as organizing structures for students’ experience of instruction and
as explanations for their everyday experience.

Throughout the period following the “invention” of photosynthesis
Ben continued to maintain his preconception of food for plants to be water,
fertilizer, air, and light. Based upon knowledge asserted during the obser-
vation of instruction as well as during the clinical interviews and the re-
sponses given on the pre- and post-test Figure 22 shows the continuity of
several aspects of Ben’s propositional knowledge.

This figure shows that as other conceptions were being incorporated
into Ben’s conceptual framework those which were present initially
remained. Some of these coexisted with contradictory conceptions as well
as goal conceptions. This provides evidence that students may develop con-
ceptual structures as a result of instruction and other experiences which
can be internally consistent and quite elaborate, but which are inconsistent
with the scientific explanation of the phenomena they observed.

A review of Ben’s postconceptions in contrast to his preconceptions
reveals that he has experienced a transformation of cognitive structure
whereby new concepts and principles were combined with previous

knowledge. His view of food for plants, however, continued throughout this

144

0 972 A2 .M mmgh GZAZMMDZOO ZmAmA >m QEMMmm< MAUQMABOZM .mN guy—h

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mZOmmMA

 

 

 

 

 

 

WA. .A. .A.
8 o .2 o o o o 0
AA .A A.
A. A). A.
A A A A A
«M M M «M M
A A A A mm
w .. 2 A. 2......
m. A as. as. use 35... ..e ..8... o
.2 z
o «o
<
m A A S
«M aM M M «M
. 8 .3228: so... ..8.
MN a mu :0... a. 3.3 as. 2.23 35... 3.
A2
A A 3......
2m: “Snags. a. .5... 5.3
o m .s... 3.2: as. 2.23 35... M
o A m
. . . . . . . . . . . mg... . A
no
a 20 2 Z 3 ...o 3 an 20.3.... a. .m «6.3:... .. 2.. 229598....

 

 

145

period to be formed around raw materials (i.e., water, fertilizer, air, and
light) which contain nutrients that plants take in. The concepts present in
the preconception representation have been retained yet with the addition of
several new concepts; cotyledon, chlorophyll and photosynthesis (see Figure
23).

Ben previously indicated a belief that food for plants is “fertilizer”
taken in from several forms of matter. He now conceptualizes food acquisi-
tion for plants to include the cotyledon as a source as well. He has
assimilated the idea that the cotyledon provides food or is a source of food in
terms of the cotyledon being a mechanism for collecting and transmitting
food for the young plant.

He also continues to believe that the role of light is to provide plants
with the extra nutrients needed to make chlorophyll. The knowledge as-
serted following the completion of Chapter 6 reflects Ben’s new affirmation
of photosynthesis as a source of food for the plant. This is further elabo-
rated as he indicates that photosynthesis is the “getting together” of food
sources for the plant.

The evidence indicates that he seems to believe that photosynthesis is
a mixture of water, air, and light; that it is “stuff,” not a process involving
change. It is a process in which the food sources for the plant are
combined; an action involving the mixing of food sources. His addition of
photosynthesis seems to involve a view similar to that which he developed
for the cotyledon feeding the plant; a mechanism for transmitting food. He
does not view plants as making their food, but rather as engaging in a tak-
ing in process and “putting together”; there is no change in materials.
Thus, the function of photosynthesis is in terms of the role of each of the

mixed elements.

146

3ch A<DHAAQOZOU @735 .aa HEDGE—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

147

The data reviewed in the case studies reveals that for the most part
the instruction failed to bring about the intended changes in Bens’ concep-
tions of the source of food for plants. The results also indicate that Ben did
not understand an important empirical relationship intended as the major
challenge to his preconception that plants get their food from the soil. The
instructional strategy of the literal program builds upon the anticipated
results that plants left in the dark die while those in the light turn green
and grow, despite the fact that the soil is the same in every planter cup.
However, the post-instruction data (i.e., the sixth clinical interview, posttest
results and propositions asserted during the final lesson) indicated that
this result was not apparent to Ben.

The results of this and other studies indicate that traditional in-
struction does not facilitate an appropriate reconciliation of pre-
instructional knowledge with the content of instruction. Alternative
conceptual systems are remarkably resistant to change by exposure to
traditional instructional methods. Moreover, there appears to be evidence
that these alternative conceptual systems are not facilitative of the learning
process.

While these results were consistent with those reported by other
studies (Champagne, Klopfer and Gunstone, 1982; Nussbaum and Novick,
1982b), it was anticipated that the methodology developed for this study
would furnish sufficient data to achieve a greater depth of understanding.
This ‘thicker description’ would provide an account of the ways that in-
struction seemed to go wrong when it might have been otherwise. It is
important to consider carefully the adequacy of the instruction and, in
particular, the strategy for occasioning the instruction in making judge-

ments about a theoretical base (i.e., model of conceptual change).

148

W

The analysis led to the identification of several patterns which yield
insights concerning the ways you can go wrong in attempting to bring
about conceptual change. It is argued that the “thick description” (cf.,
Geertz, 1973) provided in the case studies exposed occurrences which took
place during instruction that will provide insights into the dynamics of stu-
dent concept formation. The problems identified which appear to have gen-
eral implications for cognitive instruction included the findings that in-
struction was in some ways attacking the wrong preconception, that com-
munication was sometimes hampered by systematic sources of ambiguity,
and that some important issues were not adequately framed through the
use of appropriate questions.

A more detailed examination of some critical class discussions using
the transcript data will provide some interpretative patterns. The following
sections describe and document those aspects of instruction which seemed
to explain the disappointing learning results in this study.

SI 1 | l E . l I | |°

The students’ actions and their responses to phenomena are viewed
in this section against the background of the experiences occasioned in the
environment of the classroom.

W5. Changes in student knowledge
were influenced by several different kinds of encountered information.
Information content was inherent in observations of phenomena and ab-
stract ideas expressed by the teacher or other students.

Observations of phenomena played important roles in the process of
knowledge change. They provided the basis for the addition of descriptive

propositions (or empirical generalizations). The shrinking of the cotyledon

149

seems to have been very influential. During his involvement in the activi-
ties of Chapter 4 Ben observed the growth of the embryo only when attached
to the cotyledon. During Lesson 4.4 he also observed the cotyledon shrink in
size as the attached embryo grew. This proposition was reaffirmed several
times during Lesson 4.7 in which students indicated their conjecture con-

cerning seed part functions.

John: I just had a brainstorm that
maybe/
/I’m beginning to think that the cotyledon
does give the embryo it’s food. Cause
I’m not/
/I’m not/
/cotyledon/
/it seems like the cotyledon must have shrunk a
little bit. What I think maybe happened is the
cotyledon gives the embryo/
/it gives/ ‘
/more than the source that I first thought of
food. It gives it and/
/it/
/it starts shrivelling up cause it’s giving
the embryo food.

John picks up on the teacher’s point and it is quite important to him, “a
brainstorm.” The observation of the cotyledon actually shrinking at the
same time that the embryo was growing may have been suggestive, in
Ben’s view, of something going from the cotyledon into the embryo. He
formulated the belief that what was being transferred was water, a source
of food. The most plausible inference in Ben’s view, as the result of inter-
nalizing an interpretation of the observations and experiences during
chapter four, was that the cotyledon collects and transmits food to the
embryo.

Other observations provided the basis for the change in contradictory

propositions already a part of the students knowledge base. Prior to

instruction Ben suggested that plants continue to live in the light or dark
because they get food from soil. Ben’s intermediate knowledge state showed
evidence of a change of his view of the consequence of the absence of light.
It was at that point, during the observations of grass in the light and dark,
he asserted that light was necessary for plants to live. In conjunction with
this he asserted that plants continue to live only in the light because plants
need light to make chlorophyll.

Observations also helped to drive the process of making other
changes by providing something that needed to be explained. The impor-
tance of light, the idea of plants being green and its relationship to light,
developed from empirical evidence. The conditions which framed the en-
counter with the empirical evidence entailed student observation of plants
switched from the dark to the light. During a discussion aimed at inter-
preting their observations the students were asked to describe these plants.
The responses lead to the exposure of a relationship between light and plant
color. The inclusion of chlorophyll in Ben’s conceptual framework was the
result of an assertion by a student during task five of Lesson 5.5 (see Table 3)
which gave him an explanation in the form of a mechanism which resolved
his sense making process concerning the observed relationship.

Ben’s conceptual change as a result of the empirical observations
seems to involve what Hewson (1981) refers to as a “conceptual capture.”
This involves the process by which a prior conception is reconciled with an
encountered conception. Moreover, this is an example of how the state-
ments of others, in an appropriate context, can influence a change.

Abstract ideas presented by the teacher or other students also played

an important role in the process of knowledge change. They provided

151

propositional links which helped students construct explanations relating

empirical generalizations to existing knowledge structures.

TABLE 3.

Lesson 5.5 Discussion Concerning Chlorophyll

 

 

Information Content Source
25 Plants switched from the dark to the Student
light turned green because of the sun.
26 Light has changed the color. Teacher
27 The sun gives it the extra food and nutrients Ben
it needs to get back the normal color of
any other plant.
28 The sun or the light has changed it back Ben
to green.
29 The plant can not produce chlorophyll without Student
the sun.
30 The chlorophyll is the green. Student
31 The light from the sun has changed the color Teacher
to green.

The evidence (Lott, 1983c) provides a focus toward lesson five during
which a student introduced information content concerning chlorophyll af-

ter which Ben refers to the color of the plant.

176 T: Louis, why do you think Heather’s plant is
green now and it was yellow before? She moved
it from the dark to the light.

177 Louis: Uha, if it was in the dark then it would, uha

178 T: ?

179 Bobby: Because of the sun.

180 T: Alright you think some light changed the color,
okay, Ben?

181 Ben: Well the sun gives it the extra nutrients and food
it needs to get back the normal color of any other
plant.

152

The knowledge asserted during instruction (Lott, 1983c) as well as in
the fourth clinical interview reflects Ben’s affirmation of chlorophyll as
what makes plants green. This is further elaborated as he indicates the
plants need for chlorophyll and an awareness of the importance of light for
a plants color and its living processes. The knowledge of chlorophyll helped
explain green in light and yellow in dark. It is shown in the interview that
he views plants having food as contingent upon color which is dependent

upon the presence of chlorophyll.

Ben: They need the light to make the!
/like on trees. They have light to make chlorophyll for
their leaves. On plants their leaves are their stems and
trees don’t have stems so when the chlorophyll isn’t
made the stems will turn a very light yellow, lose their
coat and then just die.

I: You mentioned chlorOphyll, could you tell me a little

more about that?

Ben: Well, chlorophyll is a substance/
/see the plant has all the things in it to make except
for one so in the one missing thing is the ultra-violet
rays from the sun and that gives it the last ingredient
it needs to make the chlorophyll. Now when it doesn’t
get those ultra-violet rays from the sun then it can not
make the chlorophyll so it dies.

I: Could you tell me a little bit more about what the

chlorophyll does for the plants?

Ben: Well, the chlorophyll is the color of the plant and it
keeps/
/lets say on trees, every time the leaves lose their
chlorophyll which is when the supply gets shut off
because of winter, they fall off because they have
no life left in them. The same thing happens with
plants when there is no chlorophyll to give them to
keep living they just die.

The importance of light developed during task 4 of Lesson 5.10 where
an abstract idea (i.e., photosynthesis) was presented by the teacher as a

process for putting together the food sources of the plant. What took place

153

was a teacher presented idea which the student’s perceived as a food giving
process to explain the empirical observations they encountered.

W. The process of knowledge change involved ac-
tive construction by the student of propositional links not explicitly encoun-
tered in instruction (see me. in Figure 14). This involved active sense
making whereby the student used “pieces” available to build connections
and construct links, which were used for “making sense” of classroom
observations.

The incident previously discussed is a case in point in which obser-
vations influenced changes by providing something that needed to be
explained. The empirical evidence (i.e., light and color) with the informa-
tion content input (i.e., chlorophyll and its relation to color and light) en-
abled Ben to construct (i.e., integrate information content) a new conceptual
framework which was different but consistent with his previous
conception.

It was in Clinical Interview 3 that it becomes evident that Ben real-
izes plants need chlorophyll to be green. He also believes that the function
of light is to provide the food nutrients to make the chlorophyll. This may
have been the result of his encounter with the empirical evidence that
plants need light to be green in conjunction with information content pro-
vided by other students in Lesson 5.5 and task five. This interaction of em-
pirical evidence and information content was observed in an earlier exam-
ple which referenced the discussion which took place as part of task 5 of
Lesson 5.5. The interaction of interest took place at the point where the
class is discussing those plants taken from the dark and placed in the light.

WW Although it has been hy-

pothesized that preconceptions (e.g., naive conceptions) influence the

interpretation of events and therefore can affect learning (Ausubel, 1960,
1963), the results of this study provide clear instances as well as
documentation to support this conjecture. The preconceptions held by
students continued to influence, as might be expected, how they interpreted
the natural phenomena which were observed as well as the information
content which they encountered. These preconceptions, therefore, had an
effect upon the learning process and the resultant outcomes.

There was evidence of the influence of preconceptions upon student
interpretations. Alternative (i.e., naive) conceptual systems do not facilitate
the learning process. These preconceptions may limit the level of “sense
making” achieved by the student.

There were several data points reported (Lott, 1983b) which provide
evidence of Ben’s attempt to make sense. It is argued that for conceptual
change to occur, the learner must be trying to make sense of the informa-
tion content encountered. Making sense seems to involve the student trying
to relate new information to some prior knowledge in a way that is, in the
learner’s judgement, internally consistent (cf., Hewson, 1981). In addition,
this seems to be related to Ausubel’s (1968, p. 38-39) “set to learn
meaningfully.”

There was evidence that during Lessons 4.4 through 4.7 he encoun-
tered the idea that the cotyledon provides food for the embryo. However, this
idea would not be in conflict with his preconception concerning food for
plants. His preconception of food for plants is that it consists of external
materials which are “absorbed,” by the plant. The following transcript ex-

cerpt from clinical interview one provides an insight into this conception.

155

Ben: The seeds need fertilizer for them to grow.
I: Could you tell me a little more about how they get this
fertilizer?
Ben: They absorb it from the sun rays and from the soil and
other things.
I: Could you give me an idea, you say other things, what
these other things might be?
Ben: Well, they would be manufactured fertilizer, decomposed
objects, such as dead animals or something, and water.

All of these sources except soil are present during the germination
experiment. The observation of the embryo growth when attached to a
cotyledon necessitates only that he add to his conceptual framework an
object, the cotyledon, through which food is absorbed.

Moreover, his interpretation of plant growth in the light and dark
was influenced by his preconceptions. The following excerpt from clinical
interview three provides a view of his interpretation of the grass experiment
in terms of his explanation of the importance of light to the color of the
plant.

Ben: Well, it (the experiment) shows that sunlight gives plants
the extra nutrients and food that it needs to make chloro-
phyll to make it stay green.

I: Can you tell me more about, you mentioned chlorophyll,
staying green?

Ben: Well, the plant, it makes chlorophyll from the sunlight that
it takes in when there’s light hitting it. When there’s no
light hitting it, it can’t produce the chlorophyll that it
needs to keep the green.

Light remains a source of nutrients, but more specifically it enables the
plant to make the chlorophyll which it needs to be green. The explanation
of plants being green is the production of chlorophyll, which does not seem
to offer a conflict. Therefore, there is no “change” in conceptual structure.
In response to the request for a prediction during Clinical Interview 3 con-
cerning what would happen to the grass plants which were started in the

dark and remained in the dark the following was offered.

156

Ben: Because, they’re going to turn yellow because, I told you
before, they can’t produce the chlorophyll that the sun-
light gives the extra nutrients to make. So, also they’re
going to grow normally because they get all the nutrients
to grow from the water and the soil.

This explanation in terms of nutrients, and in one case during Lesson 5.10

and task 3 making reference to food, is consistent with his preconceptions.

It is near the end of chapter six that Ben asserts the importance of

photosynthesis. However, there is evidence (Lott, 1983c) which directs at-

tention to Ben’s idiosyncratic conception of the nature of photosynthesis.

This conception is also affirmed by many of the students during a

discussion in task 3 of Lesson 6.9 where they use a mixture view of

photosynthesis rather than a process view. During this discussion there is

the appearance of the mixture view with some clarification of

consequences.
$ Dan:
41 Sam:
56 T:
62 T.
63 Janet:
65 Janet:

Well, I said it depends and/

/reason I said that is cause I think if it’s very close
to the front of the cave and/

/it’ll still survive because of the light coming in and
if it is pretty far near the back, then it won’t live
because it doesn’t have all the photosynthesis.

It doesn’t have the whole photosynthesis, though. It
might happen but we don’t know if it does or not.

Yeah, I think we were saying a minute ago that
plants needed photosynthesis. And what is that?
What is photosynthesis?

' Okay, let’s hear from somebody else now. Janet?

Well, most plants need photosynthesis.

Well even if they needed photosynthesis, two out of three
isn’t bad. Okay, because I tried with, I didn’t give it
any air it just had water and it died.

The above discussion provides evidence that the students place some

importance upon the presence of light for continued plant growth. A

157

student later elaborates that the plants in the cave would not have “all the
photosynthesis.” This is offered as an explanation by another student. This
“part” concept continues to be used by the students in their explanations.
The students seem to believe that the parts of photosynthesis are themselves
food sources for the plant and it is merely a mixing process, not a process of
change and food production.

The preconceptions of student’s continued to affect how they inter-
preted the natural phenomena which were observed as well as the
explanations offered the teacher. In many cases student interpretations in
terms of their preconceptions lead to only the “capture” of knowledge
content.

W. While there is direct evidence that
these naive conceptions have a tendency to persist following instruction
(Champagne, Klopfer, and Gunstone, 1982; Driver and Erickson, 1983), the
results of this study provide clear instances as well as documentation to
show how they can persist. Alternative conceptual systems are remarkably
resistant to change. Despite additional pieces of information being added to
an individual’s conceptual network there is frequently no change.

An examination of the classroom interaction gives some indication of
why the preconceptions persisted. Although additional pieces of informa-
tion were added to the student’s conceptual network as the result of class-
room experiences, their preconceptions were frequently not challenged.

It was reported in the first study (Lott, 1983a) that Ben’s preconcep-
tions continued to affect how be interpreted the natural phenomena which
he observed. The teacher’s belief system led her to view the situation in
terms of “if the cotyledon is seen shrinking then, in light of the argument

developed in class discussion, it is consistent that the cotyledon is food for

the young plant.” However, Ben’s preconceptions persist since the evidence
was consistent with his conception of food for plants. This resulted in his
belief that what was being transferred was water, a source of food. As a re-
sult he concluded that the cotyledon must be a source of extra water which
in his view is a food source along with soil, organic matter, and light as he
had asserted in the first clinical interview. Specifically, this change may
have been influenced by Ben’s experiences in Lessons 4.2 through 4.7 in
which he observed the embryo grow only when attached to a cotyledon or
whole bean. The embryo alone and the cotyledon alone did not grow.

An analysis (Lott, 1983c) exposed that Ben’s preconceptions also con-
tinued to affect how he interpreted the natural phenomena. The teachers
belief system led her to view the situation such that in light of the argument
developed in class discussion, it is consistent that plants make their food
using nutrients from light, air, and water. The end result being a new
substance not found in any of these raw materials. However, Ben’s precon-
ceptions are not brought into question and they persist. The evidence was
not inconsistent with his conceptions of food for plants (i.e., his
“consequences” were correct). This seems to be related to the view of
Nussbaum and Sharoni-Dagan (1983) that unless distorted conceptions are
challenged they will be used in future encounters and will shape the con-
ceptions later formulated.

A case in point is the point in instruction at which Ben gives evidence
of having made the relationship between the color of plants and the pres-
ence of light. Another student asserts that chlorophyll makes the plant
green and that the plant can’t produce it unless there is light. The follow-

ing provides a glimpse of the interchange in which this occurred.

159

Ben: Well the sun gives it the extra nutrients and food
it needs to get back the normal color of any other
plant.

T: Okay, so you’re saying the sun or the light has
changed it back to green.

Ben: Yeah.
T: Okay, John?

John: Well, the plant cannot produce chlorophyll without
the use of the sun. Chlorophyll is what makes
the plant green.

T: That’s the green, okay, so it’s the light from the
sun that can change the green, okay...

Directly following this lesson Ben gave evidence of chlorophyll being the
mechanism by which plants remain green in light. In this case Ben seems
to have performed integrative activities in the process of making sense of
his encounters. Integrative activities are those which fit new ideas and
material together with what the student already knows.
I l , M l I] . Em |

The teachers actions are viewed in this section against the back-
ground of the program and the intended learning outcomes. Actions on the
part of the teacher provided a framework within which observational en-
counters were experienced, provided direction which guided the behaviors
of students, and lead to unresolved ambiguities.

W. The focus in this section is upon the
identification of “events” which in retrospect could have performed as
“exposing events.” These are events (cf., Nussbaum and Novick, 1982) in
the instructional sequence which lead to an episode which will make public
the alternative frameworks used by the students. Properly occasioned

events “encourage students to articulate them” (i.e., alternative

160

conceptions) (Nussbaum and Novick, 1982, p. 188). N ussbaum and Novick
(1982) suggest that these “events” go beyond the “learning cycle” (Karplus,
1977) and “make an effort to analyze the assumptions” (p. 188) which are the
basis of a student’s misconceptions. Just as the “learning cycle” went be-
yond the E88 open activity, with the structured exploration where precon-
ceptions were exposed, the “exposing event” goes another step and encour-
ages the teacher to require the student to analyze the assumptions behind
what s/he has stated.

This section will identify those events which might have served this
function, but which actually lead to the retention of misconceptions.
Insights into the role of anomalies in experimental results, and the discus-
sions which followed, provide a framework for understanding why these
events did not provide a foundation for conceptual change.

Selected tasks, whether intended or not as part of the program
design, could be viewed as “exposing events.” However, these tasks did not
provide support for later discrepant events and therefore did not result in
laying the ground work for conceptual change. In two cases the teacher
merely provided the environment for the students’ to verbalize their
concepts, she did not get them to juxtapose their concepts or did she chal-
lenge them (i.e., “what is your evidence,” “could you explain that further”).

The intent of the activities of Chapter 4 was that the empirical evi-
dence of the shrinkage of the cotyledon will support the development of sev-
eral theoretical propositions during a discussion in Lesson 4.5 aimed at in-
terpreting the observations made by students during the investigation.
However, the teacher did not conduct the discussions such that they would

“expose” the conceptual framework being used by the student.

161

As previously described, the observation of the cotyledon actually
shrinking at the same time that the embryo was growing may have been
suggestive, in Ben’s view, of something going from the cotyledon into the
embryo. He formulated the belief that what was being transferred was
water, a source of food. The most plausible inference in Ben’s view, as the
result of internalizing an interpretation of the observations and experiences
during Chapter 4, was that the cotyledon collects and transmits food to the
embryo.

As reported earlier the importance of light, the idea of plants being
green and its relationship to light, developed from empirical evidence.
During a discussion aimed at interpreting their observations the students
were asked to describe these plants. The responses lead to the exposure, as
the result of an assertion by a student during instruction, of a relationship
between light and plant color. This relationship involved the plant
producing chlorophyll in order to remain green, and the need for light in
order for this process to proceed.

The function of the chlorophyll as well as the mechanism by which
the function is carried out was not pursued by the teacher. In this case the
empirical evidence appears to have influenced the “consequences” of plants
having chlorophyll. It is conjectured that the empirical evidence can be
very influential in the process to change conceptions, even under the cir-
cumstance of poorly developed discussions.

The following discussion, which immediately followed the
“invention” of photosynthesis in task 4 of Lesson 5.10, was to focus upon as-

sessing student understanding of food for plants.

1 T: IfI were to say to you, the plant/
/a plant has two sources of food. Name

162

those two sources. How many of you would
have an idea about that? Gloria?
2 Gloria: Uhm, water and light?

6 Anna: I don’t know if this is right but could it be
like light and cotyledon?

7 T: Okay, you’re right Anna. One of them/
/when we say/
/one of the two sources of food for a plant]
lone of them we know but we forgot for a
moment, Ben, didn’t we, is the cotyledon.
How many of you agree with that? How
many of you agree that one source of food for
the plant is the cotyledon? Okay, now Anna
said the second source was light. Can we
work on that a little bit, Anna? And what
do we call that process? Okay, photosyn-
thesis. It’s mixing and putting together the
light/
/the light, the air, and the water, and that is
called what, Ben?

8 Ben: Photosynthesis

9 T: Okay, photosynthesis is the second source of
food, okay?

This transcript provides further evidence of the development of the idea that
photosynthesis is the mixing of what student preconceptions indicate are
sources of food for plants.

For conceptual change to occur, the learner must have an opportu-
nity to become involved in verifying activities through the application of his
conceptual framework to the explanation of observed phenomena.
Verifying is concerned with determining the adequacy of the cognitive
structure which is being developed. It has the potential for encouraging a
more valid conception. It places the student in the position of determining
if alternative conceptions can be reconciled. If this is not found to be
possible then conceptual exchange can take place (Hewson, 1981).

There are several points of evidence in relation to this issue of a lack
of concept application. An examination of the above transcript data from

task 5 of Lesson 5.10 shows that the teacher did not request any elaboration

163

on the part of students of “What is photosynthesis.” She leads the discus-

sion and focuses on the “source” of food, but not what it is.

Ben: It is water, air and light all going in and getting together,
cause photo means light and synthesis means combining
air and water, so when you do that all three of those are
food sources for plants. When it is in the dark it can’t have
photosynthesis because it only has air and water.

I: Why is photosynthesis important to plants?

Ben: They need the light to make the!

/like on trees. They have light to make chlorophyll for their
leaves. On plants their leaves are their stems and trees don’t
have stems so when the chlorophyll isn’t made the stems will
turn a very light yellow, lose their coat and then just die.

As he stated during the discussion, “the light, air and the water is called
photosynthesis.”

A comparison of the instructional overview for Lesson 5.10 and the
literal program shows that the teacher did not involve the students in an
application of the photosynthesis concept. In addition, she did not have the
students complete the brainteaser on p. 9 of the student manual.

This leads to another issue, the guidance provided by the teacher
during classroom discussions had a profound effect upon what the students
brought away from their experiences.

W The pedagogical acts
performed by the teacher influenced the student learning outcomes. The
teacher’s interpretation of the guide and her presentations influenced the
student’s observations and interpretations. In this sense they played a
“directing” role and at times left preconceptions unchallenged.

An important aspect of analysis is the determination of what task the
student engages. This involves the exposition of the student’s interpreta-
tion of the assigned task. The instructional strategy for this unit involves a

series of questions which frame discussions of the experiments and

164

observations. Questions actually presented by the teacher may not direct
students toward the distinctions which are necessary for the observational
interpretation of the question.

The analysis (Lott, 1983b) indicated that the lesson for Chapter 3 was
built around two questions. The first question which guided instruction
was “What is inside bean seeds?” The question as asked by the teacher was
not phrased to direct students toward (or away from) the observational in-
terpretation of the question.

The second question which gave direction to instruction was “what do
the embryo and cotyledon do for the plant?” This question appeared to have
been both understood and engaged by most of the class. During the discus-
sion about half the class contributed ideas, all of which appeared appropri-
ate to the question.

In order for the process of conceptual change to proceed the teacher
must bring to the attention of students important distinctions which bear
upon the problem to be solved. The need is for the teacher to occasion ap-
propriate patterning activities (cf., Johnson, Rhodes and Rumery, 1975).
These are activities which enable the students to impose some kind of order
on the elements of study.

In Chapter 3 this took the form of the teacher’s presentation of the
chart showing the seed parts had in the students’ observations. Several
students apparently did not initially notice the embryo. However, once
these students had reason to believe that there was another part, they re-
turned to their seeds to look further and found the embryo.

The discussion of seed parts and their function during Lesson 4.7

evolved around what constitutes “food” for plants.

165

(B Dan: Well, if you ask me I’d say that/
/well, I think it gives it food. It gives it
shelter because, you see, when (inaudible) all
those whole seeds are way up there you know.

37 T: Yes.

45 T: Any evidence or anything to support the statement that
it is the food, that the cotyledon is the food.

46 Davy: Yeah, I think so (inaudible) that the cotyledon
gets/
/the embryo gets food and (inaudible) shelter.

Once the idea had been brought forth the teacher then seized the opportu-
nity to develop the concept that the cotyledon is food and that this can be
used to explain the phenomena they have observed. What followed was stu-
dent responses to the teacher request for evidence. At the point indicated by
the following transcript excerpt the teacher seeks an assessment of student

understanding.

T: Okay, Dan. Do you want to say anything more about that?
How many of you feel as though the '
cotyledon!
lwe maybe should have checked. How many of you feel as
though the cotyledon is the food? How many of you agree
with Dan about that? How many of you feel that the
cotyledon feeds the embryo. Wait a minute Reed, I’m
asking a question and I want to see hands. How many of
you feel as though, or think that the cotyledon

provides the food .. provides the food .. for the

embryo or the plant?

 

In the above instance the teacher has stated two questions. There is some
doubt as to whether the teacher realized that there were two distinct ques-
tions as opposed to being a single question phrased two different ways. The
discussion continued during which the argument was further developed
through reference to the shrinking cotyledon. It was then affirmed that
young plants must get their food from the cotyledon, soil, or water.

The teacher seems to believe, based upon her structuring of the

discussion, that the exposure of student ideas will provide information

166

content which will lead the students to realize that their view of the world is
limited in its ability to provide an explanation of the experimental
phenomena. In her view this will result in the inclusion of the proposition
“Food for plants is the cotyledon.” However, evidence from the transcript
for task 3 of Lesson 4.7 indicates that only a few students comprehended
this.

Samuel: I think you would, because the cotyledon would
serve as food, because when we looked at ours for
the ninth day I think .. the cotyledon with the
embryo/

Ithe cotyledon was hollowing out, and the embryo
was getting a little bigger but it fell off. It was
getting fatter and longer but it fell off.

It was at this point that John made reference to the cotyledon being food for
the plant when, as quoted earlier, he stated that the cotyledon “starts shriv-
eling up cause it’s giving the embryo food.” The discussion goes on with:

Heather: I just want to say that
I/
lthe/
/probably the cotyledon is maybe the embryo’s food.
T: A hum.
Heather: and the embryo probably eats the cotyledon.

The discussions were again sequential in nature and did not require
the students to justify or give evidence. Neither did these discussions pro-
vide any challenge to the students conceptualizations. It was as though if
they heard all the ideas they could put it together themselves.

There are several points during the instructional sequence for
Chapter five where the evidence, which was used earlier to expose the per-
sistence of preconceptions, indicates that this direction may not have been
offered or was misguided. During Lesson 5.10 the proposition that plants

need light to make chlorophyll was once again asserted. However, when an

167

anomaly concerning the plant in the dark not getting enough food and the
result being its death arises the teacher did not pursue it. There is no indi-
cation that a logically based conclusion has been made that a plant’s living

is the consequence of making chlorophyll.

Ben: Well, I think that it gives
it’s/
lthe/
/ah/
/the/
/ah/
/the rays of the light gives/
/gives the plant the extra/
/the food it needs to produce the chlorophyll. And

also, I want to say in my extra experiment I/
/I was/

/it would have been plande
/my plant had been planted in the dark but it had
been kept very warm. Well, it stayed green? ..

T: Okay. .

Ben: I don’t really understand it?

The questioning pattern involved the teacher posing a question and
then seeking student responses in sequence. This provided an atmosphere
for ambiguity, the non-challenge of student interpretations and the
persistence of preconceptions. Few beliefs or hypotheses offered by, students
were challenged for justification or juxtaposition with the conceptions of
others. These tended to result in the development on the part of students of
inappropriate or incomplete conceptions.

This is reflected at several points in the transcribed discussions. In
task 5 of Lesson 5.5 during a discussion referenced regarding the persis-
tence of preconceptions, the teacher was observed requesting an explana-
tion for the color change which has been observed. She accepts a sequence

of responses; responses which in this case are acceptable. However, she

does not probe the response for further clarification or concept deve10pment.

168

Neither does she probe for evidence of the assertions made. During the dis-
cussion in task 3 of Lesson 5.10, which was referred to above, Ben raises an
anomaly which the teacher did not pursue (may have provided some en-
lightenment on light (ultra-violet) and plants in dark). However, Vickie
picked-up on this but the teacher once again does not use this to provide in-
sights into the alternative frameworks being used.

13 Vickie: Well, you know the sun in
the/
/in the summer most of the time/
land the/
/the winter you feel like you don’t want to be active
and run around all the time. People just don’t want
to sit down, but in the summer you like to lay
there/
/go to sleep, and lay down in the shade.

14 T: Ah, hu, okay.

15 Vickie: So that/
/so I think it’s more of the food.

16 T: Okay, we’re talking about the light now. Aren’t we?
17 Vickie: The heat.

The teacher in essence accepts the student response and asks for other re-
sponses but does not probe for insights into student conceptions.

The results of an analysis of the lessons which influenced Ben’s view
of plants and food (Lott, 1983c) indicated that a task during the final lesson
of Chapter 5 which is intended to provide direction for student concept for-
mation was omitted. The second task of the activity “invent photosynthesis”
as suggested in the teacher’s guide was not included in the discussion fol-
lowing the “invention” of photosynthesis. Thus, students were not re-
quested to apply the photosynthesis concept to the experiments they had
observed. As is pointed out in the teachers guide this discussion would al-
low students to m the concept of photosynthesis to explain phenomena
they had observed. This would provide an opportunity for students to verify

169

their conceptual framework; to determine its adequacy. The consequence of
this task deletion may have been to leave Ben’s preconceptions unchal-
lenged preventing any attempt to replace them with more fruitful
conceptions.

The evidence (Lott, 1983c) provided a focus toward Lesson 5.10, in
particular tasks four and five, where photosynthesis was “invented” and
applied in a discussion concerned with plants and food.

The degree of generality of the subject matter is concerned with
categories (cf., Johnson, Rhodes and Rumery, 1975). However, the
cognitive processes being called for by the teacher are only at the level of
recall. This is exemplified in the following excerpt from Lesson 5.10 and
Task 4 where it is observed that an explanation was not requested; the
teacher did not probe “what is the food?” She is seeking only informed
belief, not justified belief.

3 T: When sunlight reaches the plant the plant takes in
the sun’s energy, okay. Uh, the plant uses that energy
with the water and the air, okay. The plant uses,
Gloria, the light, the sun’s energy along, Louis, with
the water and the air to produce food for the plant.
Samuel, we have a word for that, that process and it’s
called

S: Photosynthesis.

: How many of you know or have an idea of what maybe
photo means? Gloria?
Gloria: Picture.
T: Okay, sometimes we think of photograph don’t we.
Photo meaning a picture. One of the things, I’m
waiting One of the things that’s important when
we take a picture, when we hear that word photo, is
light. Okay, that’s what it means, light. Synthesis
means putting (air and water written on board)
together. Now what could that be meaning? What
could we be implying here when we say
photosynthesis? What would be the meaning here?

mount;
#3

170

The teacher continued seeking a response to the question “What do you
think that means, light putting together?” She asks for an indication of who
has an idea about that. She calls upon several students but none respond

and then called on Samuel.

10 Samuel: Well photosynthesis means like putting the air,
water, and light together to make it’s food.

11 T: Okay, that is very well said. That’s the way I like to
think it/
/think about it.

The knowledge asserted in the sixth clinical interview reflects Ben’s
new affirmation of photosynthesis as a source of food for the plant. This is
further elaborated as “he indicates that photosynthesis is the “getting
together” of food sources for the plant. It is a process in which the food
sources for the plant are combined. However, there is also evidence that he
seems to believe that photosynthesis is a mixture of water, air, and light;
that it is “stuff,” not a process. It appears that he continues to believe food
for plants is something they take in. What is taken in is nutrients from the
soil and light.

A possible ambiguity is introduced in Lesson 5.10 and Task 5 during
a discussion which was referred to earlier in reference to observational en-
counters and their influence upon conceptual change. This potential am-
biguity occurred when the teacher makes reference to Anna’s indication
that “the second source was light,” referring to food for plants. She follows
this up with the question “what do we call this process?” She has not chal-
lenged the student statement and has gone on to refer to the “mixing and
putting together” of what data shows students believe to be sources of food
for the plant.

171

mm. The teacher and student’s were using different interpre-
tive frames during their discussions. On several occasions the teacher did
not clarify her statements, nor did she request student clarification. This
lead to the development of inappropriate conceptions.

Student and teacher interaction was found to be influenced by com-
munication difficulties brought about by the use of different interpretive
frames by the teacher and student or by the use of a limiting questioning
pattern. This issue was reflected in several points in the transcribed dis-
cussions of each case study. The questioning pattern consisted of the
teacher posing a question and then seeking student responses in sequence.
This provided an atmosphere for ambiguity and the development on the
part of students of inappropriate conceptions. Few beliefs or hypotheses of-
fered by students were challenged for justification or juxtaposition with the
conceptions of others.

The teacher would generally request an explanation for the natural
phenomena observed. She would accept a sequence of responses, however,
she would not probe the responses for further clarification or concept
development. Neither did she probe for evidence of the assertions made.

In the task culminating the germination system experiment, as re-
ported earlier in the exposure of teacher directedness in relation to the dis-
cussion of seed parts and their function, an ambiguity is introduced into the
discussion; the ambiguity was concerned with the function of the cotyledon.
It was during this period that the teacher used a view of the world which
was in conflict with that of the students. This view had to do with what
constitutes “food” for plants.

Another ambiguity which was introduced was in reference to which

cotyledon shrank, those alone or those attached. The teacher consistently

172

refers to seed parts rather than experimental conditions. The following

transcript excerpt from task 6 of Lesson 4.4 provides a view of a discussion

in which this occurred.

13

E8538

{1)

T:

Walt:

T:

Alright, what’s seed part did not grow, what would you
say, what seed part did not grow. Walt?

Our cotyledon.

Your cotyledon hasn’t grown. Okay, any other.

I’m going to be calling on one person at a time.
Anything else, any other. Kim?

: Cotyledon.

T: Your cotyledon has not grown? John.

T: Okay, may vary. Alright, do you think though, what

"-3.”.2

happened with your embryo? Report on your embryo.
What happened with your embryo?

Well it started last day, it didn’t grow.

: It hasn’t grown since the last time? Okay, Anna?

T: Okay, the cotyledon, most of you said the cotyledon

Dan:

has not grown. Do you think it’s going to grow,
say within the next week? Raise your hand, Dan?

No, because it, to me it seems like it shouldn’t
grow because the embryo seems like to me (in audible)

During this exchange one is left wondering if the students were re-

ferring to the cotyledon alone, the cotyledon attached to the embryo, or the

embryo alone. This is not specifically indicated by student or teacher in the

discussion. This could lead to misinterpretations and the assertion of an

invalid proposition. For example, the statement “Our cotyledon” in re-

sponse to the question “what seed part did not grow” can be taken to mean

that the attached cotyledon did not grow or to mean that the separate cotyle-

don did not grow.

While the teacher did attempt to bring out the shrinkage of the at-

tached cotyledon, with some success, she did not detect the ambiguity.

173

T: The group yesterday/
/group C noticed that the cotyledon,
um, this is grown/
/the embryo part, the plant part has grown
significantly, hasn’t it. They noticed that their
cotyledon was beginning to look a little withered
and it fact like it was ln'nd of dented in. Like,
it was beginning to shrivel up or become smaller.
They noticed the cotyledon had not grown at all
itself, that it was the embryo. And, um, they were
beginning to think yesterday that probably the
cotyledon was serving as food. Reed?

Reed: A, you see what happened/

/the/
/you see/
llike/
/the other things, the embryo and the cotyledon
started growing a lot, but just the cotyledon,
it’s kind of/
/went/
/went down/
At stayed/
/the others started growing, but the cotyledon
itself just stayed.

T: Okay, John?

The ambiguity found above was not resolved nor was there an effort to
establish what the shrinkage meant. The teacher referred to the attachcd
cotyledon whereas Reed was referring to the mtg cotyledon. Reeds
hesitancy is an indication of his uncertainty. With his statement the
“cotyledon itself just stayed” he seems to have missed the point. This confu-
sion can lead to several meanings. For example, “the cotyledon shrank”
can be taken to mean that the attached cotyledon shrank as the embryo
grew (a crucial observation for the goal proposition) or to mean that the
separate cotyledon shrank (an unimportant piece of information).

In the analysis of the lesson intended to pursue an interpretation of
the bean experiment (Lott, 1983c) it was found that the questioning pattern
provided an atmosphere for ambiguity and the development on the part of

students of inappropriate conceptions. Evidence for this as well as a lack of

174

attention at resolving differences in student conceptions is found in task 5 of
Lesson 6.7 where the teacher did not challenge the students to justify their

claims (see Table 4).

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4.
Task 5 of Lesson 6.7 Discussion
Information Content Source Comments
1 Plants in the dark will eventually Student
die, because they have no light.
2 Whether plants get food from soil Ben
depends upon the type of soil.
3 Plants get food from the soil. Ben
4 Soil has food in it and the plant Ben
takes it out.
5 Plants don’t get food from the soil. Student
6 Plants do not need soil. Student
7 Plants get minerals from the soil. Student
8 Plants have two sources of food. Teacher
9 The two sources of food for the Ben Ben picks up on
plant are the cotyledon and the teachers
photosynthesis. interpretation
(“sources of
food”) and re-
fers to an object
and a process.
10 Soil provides for deficiencies by Teacher Ben agrees with
providing minerals and vitamins this statement.
plants need to grow.

Although the teacher made reference to plants making food her de-
velopment of the concept of photosynthesis with the “mixing” and “getting

together” idea may have left student preconceptions unchallenged.

175

Ambiguity was evident in student responses concerning what they thought
photosynthesis is. This ambiguity is found in the possible alternative
meanings.

1) photosynthesis collects and transmits food to the plant.

2) photosynthesis is a mixture of three substances (light, water,

and air) each of which maintains its distinct function.

3) photosynthesis uses air, water, and light to produce a new

substance which is food for the plant.
The first alternative conception has the appearance of the cotyledon concept
used by Ben, until after Lesson 5.10, and other students. The transcript
from Lesson 5.10 and Task 4 used previously to develop the issue of teacher
directedness provides a view of the teachers conduct of the “invention” of the
concept of photosynthesis.

The teacher’s initial statement made use of the idea that plants pro-
duce food, however, after she gave the definition reference was consistently
made to “putting together” light, air, and water. After the initial amplifi-
cation of photosynthesis no reference was made to light providing energy.
The teacher followed Samuel’s reply with several requests for student recall
of the concept identification or meaning. These responses referred to light,

air, and water “getting together”; there were no references to plants

making food.

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

The key contribution of this study has been the design and imple-
mentation of a unique data collection system and the techniques for data
analysis which give a researcher the capability to explore the dynamics of
conceptual change. The results of this study demonstrate that the system
for data collection and the methods for analysis developed for this research
effort were capable of revealing the patterns necessary to investigate the dy-
namics of conceptual change. It has provided insights concerning the na-
ture of conceptual change and the reasons for the difficulties encountered
in teaching for conceptual change.

The results of this and other. studies indicate that traditional instruc-
tion does not facilitate an appropriate reconciliation of pre-instructional
knowledge with the content of instruction. Alternative conceptual systems
are remarkably resistant to change by exposure to traditional instructional
methods. Moreover, there appears to be evidence that these alternative
conceptual systems do not facilitate the learning process.

While this study provides support for the findings of other studies
(e.g., Champagne, Klopfer and Gunstone, 1982; Norman and Clement,
1981; Nussbaum and Novick, 1982b), the findings which evolved from the
use of this comprehensive methodology suggest that matching instruction
to the conceptual ecology of the students is both essential and difficult. The
methodology (i.e., data collection as well as analysis procedures) was found
to be capable of providing sufficient data to gain new insights concerning
the nature of conceptual change and the reasons for the difficulties en-

countered in teaching for conceptual change.

176

177

The instructional sequence was based on a strategy (Knott, Lawson,
Karplus and Thier, 1978) which seemed well conceived and consistent with
a model of conceptual change (i.e., Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog,
1982). Moreover, the teacher had the benefit of a revised guide that made
the instructional sequence and its conceptual change strategy more
explicit; and the observation of the classroom supported the belief that the
teacher had successfully implemented it. However, the limited success of
the instruction in bringing about the intended changes in student concep-
tions directed attention to searching for the ways in which instruction was
misguided.

D. .

This was a sequence of three case studies which followed one
student’s (i.e., Ben) attempt to make sense of encounters with physical
phenomena during an instructional unit of learning experiences con-
cerning photosynthesis. The student’s response to incongruities between
his preconceptions and the scientific content he encountered involved active
construction of propositional networks whereby he used ‘pieces’ available to
build connections for ‘making sense’ of classroom observations. The na-
ture and result of this process was affected by his preconceptions as well as
the features of instruction (e.g., communication and questioning patterns,
interpretive frames used by the teacher and student).

There were few changes in Ben’s conceptions as he experienced
instruction. In each case study, the central change was an addition to
Ben’s conceptual framework. The data reviewed in the case studies reveals
that for the most part, the instruction failed to bring about the intended

changes in Ben’s conceptions of the source of food for plants.

178

The research suggests that Ben’s preconceptions influenced his in-
terpretation of instructional content by actively competing with scientific
alternatives as organizing structures for his experience of instruction and
as explanations for his everyday experience. In addition, the features of in-
struction influenced the occurrence and direction of changes in Ben’s
conceptions.

The following discussion will focus upon the insights gained re-
garding the above points. In particular, attention will be given to the in-
fluence of preconceptions and the lack of conceptual challenge at key points
in the instructional sequence, the impact of communication difficulties and
the inherent ambiguity found at several key points, the important influence
of tasks which expose distinctions, the lack of concept application experi-
ences and the questioning patterns observed.

We

The three case studies upon which this report is based provides evi-
dence that student preconceptions are important factors in the reconcilia-
tion of internal conceptual conflicts. The preconceptions held by students
continued to influence how they interpreted the natural phenomena which
were observed as well as the information content which they encountered.
There was evidence that alternative (i.e., naive) conceptual systems do not
facilitate the learning process. These preconceptions may limit the level of
“sense making" achieved by the student.

The analysis exposed that Ben’s preconceptions also continued to
affect how be interpreted the natural phenomena. The nature of the en-
counter between Ben’s preconceptions and the information content at sev-
eral points in the instructional sequence indicates that they (i.e., the

preconceptions) were not taken into consideration.

179

One aspect of misconceptions (i.e., alternative frameworks) alluded
to in the recent studies of conceptual change, and supported by the results
of this study, is the strength of preconceptions. There seems to be support
for the argument by Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) that “a new
conception is unlikely to displace an old one, unless the old one encounters
difficulties, and a new intelligible and initially plausible conception is
available that resolves these difficulties” (p. 220). For conceptual change to
occur, more is required of the teacher than simply the occasioning and
structuring of content. Moreover, the student is required to go beyond the
apprehension of the information content and its integration into the con-
ceptual framework and must produce a way to deal with the incongruous
situation.

Ben’s conception of food for plants is that it consists of nutrients
taken in from certain raw materials. There has been nothing during in-
struction to challenge the plausibility or fruitfulness of his conception. His
encounter with alternative statements concerning food for plants (i.e.,
photosynthesis) doesn’t in itself encourage conceptual change. This sup-
ports the contention put forth by Hewson (1981) that conceptual exchange
(the process of replacing C with C') is only possible when the existing con-
ception is found not to be plausible or fruitful and the two conceptions are
irreconcilable. The elaboration or transformation of conceptual framework
which is necessary for reconciliation to occur involves the generalization
and re-ordering of previously assimilated concepts and principles.
WWW

Prior to instruction, Ben viewed food for plants as various external
raw materials including light. However, Ben’s preconceptions were not

brought into question and they persisted. It was observed that throughout

the period of instruction Ben, as well as the other students, continued to
maintain their preconceptions of food for plants. A review of Ben’s post-
conceptions in contrast to his preconceptions reveals that he has experi-
enced a transformation of conceptual framework. Yet that modification of
conceptual structure involved what Hewson (1981) has referred to as
“conceptual capture” as opposed to a “conceptual exchange.” The concepts
present in the preconception representation have been retained, yet with the
addition of several new concepts (e.g., cotyledon, chlorophyll and
photosynthesis) the relationships have not been changed. The preconcep-
tion of food for plants was not displaced but was reorganized to include a
mechanism for the absorption of food, a substance for making the plant
green, and a process for the mixing of food sources.
C . I. D’Efi ]|°

Driver and Easley (1978) have argued that student and teacher in-
teraction is further influenced by communication difficulties brought about
by the use of different interpretive frames by the teacher and student. This
would seem to be supported by the level of ambiguity which was found pre-
sent at several points in the transcripts. Applying the constructivist
philosophy, Magoon (1977) asserts that the teacher and students are
“purposive agents whose thoughts, plans, perceptions, and intentions in-
fluence their behavior and moderate the effects of behavior” (p. 652). The
teacher and student engaged in social interaction in the classroom and are
mutually accountable to each.

A limitation in the extent of conceptual change was the ambiguity
found in the interpretative discussion concerning the function of the
cotyledon. It was found that the teacher and students were proposing that

the cotyledon provides food for the embryo, but the teacher was using a

181

frame “the cotyledon is, food” while the students were using a frame “the

cotyledon Wm food to the embryo.”
EmsinaElent

Support has been found for the argument that conceptual changes
are influenced by the interaction of environmental factors such as teacher
and student acts within the framework provided by the learning experi-
ences and the internal reconciliation processes of the student. This was
observed at several points where the teacher occasioned a discussion di-
rected at having the students interpret the evidence gained from their
experiments. It was this type of an episode in the instructional sequence
which made public the alternative frameworks used by the students and
provided what Nussbaum and Novick (1982) refer to as an “exposing event”
(p. 4). However, while there were occasions where one could point to an
exposing event, these events were seldom built upon.

C I 5 l. I.

The expectation was that the student would assimilate the proposi-
tional knowledge addressed. This merely requires the storage and retrieval
from memory of the informed beliefs about content. No internal reconcilia-
tion is called for; learning is viewed as what can be referred to as progres-
sive absolutism (Confrey, 1980). The objective of education in this case
would be the reproduction of knowledge.

The nature of the discussions showed little variation between those
concerned with exposing empirical evidence and those intended to develop
explanatory propositions. The teacher structured the discussions in such a
way as to provide as many students as possible time to present their ideas.
However, these ideas were seldom challenged in a manner which would

provide refutation or confirmation. A case in point is the preconceptions of

food for plants which were not displaced but were reorganized to include a
mechanism for the absorption of food.
Q I. . E II

The pedagogical acts performed by the teacher influenced the stu-
dent learning outcomes. The guidance provided by the teacher during
classroom discussions had a profound effect upon what the students
brought away from their experiences. The teacher’s interpretation of the
guide and her presentations influenced the student’s observations and
interpretations. In this sense they played a “directing” role and at times left
preconceptions unchallenged.

The observation data indicates that the teacher occasioned discus-
sions aimed at reporting the empirical observations of the students.
However, as shown by the group data, the patterns thus exposed were not
effectively used to influence the subjects to justify their current conceptions
in the light of the encountered evidence, nor were they used to reconcile
conflicting conceptions. The teacher merely provided the environment for
the students to verbalize their concepts, she did not get them to juxtapose
their concepts or challenge them (i.e., “What is your evidence?,” “Could you
explain that further?”).

The questioning pattern involved the teacher posing a question and
then seeking student responses in sequence. The discussions did not re-
quire the students to justify or give evidence. Neither did these discussions
provide any challenge to the students’ conceptualizations. It was as though
if they heard all the ideas they could put it together themselves. The
teacher in essence accepted the students’ responses and did ask for other

responses, but did not probe for insights into the students’ conceptions.

183

This provided an atmosphere for ambiguity, the non-challenge of
student interpretations and the persistence of preconceptions. Few beliefs
or hypotheses offered by students were challenged for justification or juxta-
position with the conceptions of others. These tended to result in the de-
velopment of inappropriate or incomplete conceptions on the part of
students.

In order for the process of conceptual change to proceed, the teacher
must bring to the attention of the students important distinctions which
bear upon the problem to be solved. The need is for the teacher to occasion
appropriate patterning activities (cf., Johnson, Rhodes and Rumery, 1975).
These are activities which enable the students to impose some kind of order
on the elements of study.

I I. I.

There are several suggestions for promoting conceptual change
which emerge from these case studies. These include the consideration of
student preconceptions as well as the environmental influences of class-
room interaction upon Ben’s conceptions and his cognitive process of
“making meaning.” Also of interest, are conjectures concerning avoidance
of communication difficulties brought on by the use of alternative
conceptions, and the importance of experimental conditions which direct
student attention to significant distinctions.

The findings of this research suggest that there is a need for change
in curriculum, teacher education, and the direction of science education
research. The problems exposed by this study indicate that matching in-
struction to the conceptual ecology of the students is both essential and

difficult. Students’ explanatory tendencies, implicit observation theories,

184

and preconceptions of specific tapics need to be given more attention by
researchers, curriculum developers, teacher educators, and teachers.

Students come to their instructional encounters with scientific con-
cepts already having ideas, expectations and beliefs concerning natural
phenomena which they have developed to make sense of their own past
experiences. These alternative frameworks, in some cases resistant to
change, in others flexible and with many internal inconsistencies, have a
negative influence on the effectiveness of science instruction. The value of
this study, however, is that it raises the awareness of the possible perspec-
tives pupils may bring and the difficulties they may have, and hence en-
hances the potential for the development of more effective communication
strategies.

Guniculnm

The instructional materials must provide the teacher not only with
an adequate strategy for promoting conceptual change, but also with an
understanding of the purpose of each specific learning activity. This in-
cludes providing the teacher with information concerning the likely pre-
conceptions of students as well as how evidence encountered by students
may be used to bring about conceptual change.

Curriculum developers must be aware of predictable alternative
conceptions and identify appropriate questions and other teaching moves
(e.g., giving examples, probing student responses, explaining, making
analogies) accordingly, and then empirically assess the effects of strategy
elements on students. Curriculum development in science, and the re-
search which supports it, must devote more attention to the structure of
thought of the child. Moreover, activities in science may need to include

those which enable pupils to disprove alternate interpretations, as well as

185

affirm accepted ones. In addition, the results of this study suggests that
science educators must realize that explanations do not spring clearly from
the data. There must be consideration given to providing students oppor-
tunities to think through the implications of their observations and mea-
surements made in science lessons.

W

An important goal for any teacher education program should be the
development of a conceptual change view of learning. In addition, the im-
portance and characteristics of misconceptions should be explored along
with the development of discussion skills which enable the teacher to rec-
ognize student conceptions from the responses they offer. Teachers must be
aware of the alternative conceptions and the intended roles of specific ques-
tions so they can recognize indications of students’ alternative conceptions
and respond appropriately.

If we are to improve science education and the teaching of science,
then we must have a less limited conceptualization of teaching from which
we can better utilize holistic observational methodologies based upon an
understanding of what teaching is (cf., Martin, 1972). Thus, having a
better conception of the current framework in which “teaching” exists, as
well as a normative conceptualization, we can better guide the improve-
ment of science education.

The difficulties exposed in this study could be avoided if teachers
were better prepared to listen to their pupils, understand the nature of their
misconceptions and, in turn, make constructive use of this knowledge on
the pupils’ behalf. The private act on the part of the student of making
sense of a concept with respect to previous knowledge must be accompanied

by the teacher requiring justification or subjecting those private thoughts to

the public scrutiny of the classroom. The development of the skills neces-
sary in order to enable teachers to effectively apply this knowledge should be
one of the primary responsibilities of every teacher education program.
This study also suggests that activity by itself is not enough; it is the sense
the student makes of it that matters. Teacher education programs must
prepare those who will teach children to provide the environment necessary
to give their students the time both individually, in groups and with their
teacher to think and talk through the implications and possible explana-
tions of what they have observed.

Educationalfiesearch

There is a need for detailed knowledge to guide curriculum devel-
opment and the reformation of teacher education to accommodate a con-
ceptual change view of learning. What is needed is an effort aimed at in-
vestigating the ways in which naive conceptions interact with instructional
experiences and the application of this knowledge to the development of
teaching programs. This need includes studies that will employ teaching
strategies and diagnostic techniques designed to help formulate instruc-
tional systems designed to change naive theories to scientifically acceptable
conceptions.

The use of the methodology developed for this study could contribute
to the effort of revealing the patterns necessary to investigate the interac-
tions between students’ conceptual frameworks and classroom instruction.
With the use of this methodology researchers could pursue answers to such
questions as “What are the key conceptual impediments to conceptual
evolution?” and “What features of instruction influence the occurrence and

direction of changes in students’ conceptions?”

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

A; .5 0.00509... .0503 3 .33.: .5 00:03.... 3:000... 5:5 9 02.03.... 2.0.5.0
55.. 9 0.00500».— ucovafi Ammo 9 0.3305005 23.5.0 .00 $0.500... :0... 003 5.3005... £000 ..0 g 0.5. .30 b30c0...x0 1:0
.9. 30.530... .35 10.0.9.3 .00 3 10.3.0.— 0..03 053.050.... ..0 00....» 00...: 0F—. .AAmaA 535$ 05.30050 35.3.0 mafia—0:0 ...

 

 

00.. 3.. «0.82 00....» 8... 50.0093 0.33 a.» 0.32.0.5 3.5.5.8030 9.8 .3 0.0.5.0.... 0.0.59... .03... 0... 0.105.530.3359... 2A... "H.602
.0395 0:0...
0:.00330550005 .23 00305 88
05 0 .2803...
33.. .05. 2.5 3 0.3 8
02.0030 3.95.0. 0230. 5.3
t... 3.2.83. ...as. a 2.2. .080 .0". 380
0500.53 5:00 0.0
.300 000.. 0.... ..o 0020.. 03... 0.5. fig
6.05:3 ..0 00:00 0. ..000 65550
000.. 0 .5 9.0.. 0.... 0:0... :05 0.5. g ....0 0500.500 ..0 5.030000... A303 88
.0 a .5030
5 09.0.. ..000 30.... 3 03.3000 83
.0300. 100 0.5. .
-050 8......30 :05 0 .0020: 03.
"3.0.. 000... .3 5.050 0.300 ..00m 808 .35.. .30.. 0.A..600Q 33
0.33 000..
..05 8 30.. ..0 53050580.. ..803 83
0.0.3.0... 0.330 83
.5000
000.. 030... 0. M0...» M0... «0...: 00.605 :5.
Ad
MOMDOm ZOABAmOmOMM Mata. .02 20305589 M29 904. ZmemA
205598....
a .336

o... mmmgo m0 MOQMABOZM A<ZOELmOnAO~AnA DZ< ZOAE<NAZ<OMO

.< NAB/ANA:

0.0000 0.5.0.5...-N Em

0.58 05:83:30.... .0503
0.300

9...... ..s. 05.30.0033 .230...
3033330

3.03 3.. m0..00....»..>..0< 33.30

0.0000
.2... 05.83.35.390 .0508

.3: 300.0
.m... 20.5.0
.3 ...03 ..000 :000 0. ..0330:

...3 3:3 ..0 0.330.003 1300».
.30..» 0.33

.0000 :02? 00.33.00 0. 30:0 0000.0

.95

:3

88

mg

88

Na

 

00.50m

205.830....

03>... .02
20.....m030ma.

205350000

30......30. m 3.30:0

m... mmmgéo ...0 000043020. 17.20.9580”... QZ< 20....<N.2<0~.0

2000.....30. .< Egan—.5.

2m<fi

...0< 20mwm:

.5393 534.55qu 23m 58
mi 2m
.353 3% .3 3:09—9:53:— vuooom 88
d: as
2: E 3.8a .53 ..c 8955:. .33 88
.33; v9.8 ..c 2593— 2332 88

1.393— ecu 9:632 a

2:393 catafifiuom 3 .833 Si 83

696 53?? noggin—Lou 33¢..— 83

53min scrap—MES» a: gem 88

.283 c333 :25 83

.mficoao he accsogacm 3 533 88

. 6.2535: 53:0 88
.839?

sagas—Eon .3 53953083 5835 88

839$ 532.2500 a: gem N

.395 3.8.— 523 «.6 van 3
:339335 ha 32......— 3 :33; g
.395 3.89 coon £953 2335 g
.acotuca can 33.— uvoa 333m ~85

 

«cone—Sm can 3.8m woom 8:85 a
55:933.: 2? 3.
momDOm ZOE—8&0?“ mare .Oz zogmomma «54,—. 904‘ 20mm":
ZOE—mOn—Omm
VSEQLU

wé mmmgo m0 mama—302$ A<ZOF~mOmOmm QZ< ZOE<N~Z<O¢O

Avwzcscoov .< EQZHQQ<

£26 55.
comm ..o 533» and—o so 33. 9.80:

.330 nun—O .3 35 33:30

69:683.— mcmgmaum Barron

.33.. 9:33.— 5 30: 0339—1—02
die» .3365

3:052:32: 9::— eoao 35

32:32 3:355 :_ Sun— .395

£an 3.8a 33 ..o 5395 :o 33
ungo—n .3 53952333. £363
£20 38m .36 3

5395 no Gaza—83.8 3 :334
23.395 acme—nanny 3952385
.23: 3:30.:— 3 aa 5

a... 2m 3:25.530:— 33

.323 was c.5302
6339? gasp—Eton .333

v.33”— .Ea c.5232

3am— oflcamuo can 30:8

~8~

may

Hg

:3

N6

 

momDOm

ZOrEmOmOmm

mm>e .OZ
ZOELmOmOmm

€3,558 v .8325

203.38me

9m mango m0 awn—BABOZ! 4540—9580?“ DZ< zog<§2<0m0

€035.88 .< X~QZflmm<

39a.

80¢ ZOmmmA

191

$5395
3: 3.53 ..o 5395 9:53 3:35
.333.“ 395 3.33 5923 2585
.395 3...:— 523 8:35

3:35 was 8:85

.5833
321 3 352— .3 9.59283 58¢?
.353 zoom
.84.... .5.— 358 $9.23 as... @353
.33 23 20:3 39% .8523
.5. “Eon wag-95 05 35:03
.052— omega
05 can acme; gonad—3.. 05 :33qu
.3353 .3 5328—93 3 5.33
.352. 3:33.. 05 5.5.53

3am omauo><
6593— 330m

.38: .53 95232
6533? 5:35—53 .333

380m 1.3 9:532

3:85 .23 Sun 0989i

~8—

8:

8:

3:

8:
82

cm

9..

 

HomDOm

ZOF—mOn—Oxm

mm?—. .02
ZOr—Lmomomm

zogmommn

€255.33 v .5325

mé mmmgéo m0 max—“.3302! izozhmomomm. DZ< ZO_B<N_Z<UmO

Acoscsccuv .< X—n—Zm—mm4w

v34?

90< ZOmmmA

 

.35.. “.00.. 0.50002 98
.0539? 5305.....0m .303 «.8
6.500% as: 3.005 a.
00:85 6:0 0.50002 a...
$530..»
8.. 8...... ..0 .33....» 9.33 00:85 .58
£030.... 30.5 3...:— 5023 00:85 28
.30..» 3.0.. £0.23 3:005 38
.352. ..0 5300.83 £803 38
.850.— 0m0..0>0 055.305 28
00:85 1:: gau0>< «a
£05 3.3..
v03 ..0 539.0 00.30 3 30.. 5.2.0.5. 58
.230.» .03.?
-8... ..o 3:083:30... 9.0.. «.000 .05 =$
.0... 20.5.0 ..0
8.550.300... 9.0.. @000 9.000% 98
.093: @000 0.50002 3
.0832? ..030........0m .303 g
0.800% E... 03030 a m
00:85 .2... 0.50002 v...
wombOm ZOF—mOn—Omm MEN? .OZ zogmomma fimfia 90¢ 20mm":
ZOE—monomm
€025.88 v .3095

«Lu mag—L420 m0 momma—302% iZOrEmOn—Omm 52< 22.—252433;.

€025.58 .< Nun—ZHA—ma.

6.: 23:3
.8 Scan—9530:. ta ~38 c.593—

65: :03 9.3.3:
68393 coma-“5.50m 5335

v.83: 6:: oioBO

8:85 ecu 95302

$5395
38: kc 525.5 9.33 3:85
.3033 395 3.3.— 523 3:35
.395 3.3a £023 3:85
.358 .3 559258 £325
.350: cup—23 058533

3:85 was $9.23

.392» 33:

town .3 526.5 nod—u 3 5:: .5339
.2393

3:332: :o 3:253:38 85
6.: .2553

cc 3582335 to: room 283—

8025.88 330m was 3.830

mm

w.v

«A

an

 

"“5ng

ZOF—momomm

mm?—. .02
ZO—B—mOmOmm

ZOEmowmQ

Egan—88 v 53920

9m mmmgo m0 mam—43079 iZOrSmOn—Omm QZ< ZOE<N~Z<O¢O

30:52.08 .< EQZHEL<

x92.

90¢ ZOmmmA

1:95 829 3 5:: 5.23.5. a
.2995

3:339: co 3:052:82: 35 :8
d..— ucovau :0

3550.583:— 38: «38 333— 38

.38: :28 95232 88

.8539? 533250» .383 88 .

v.88: can 3.330

@8qu was 2:302

.MEBEM
3: 3.8: go 5398 9.38 8:85 88
.833.— 398 3.3: 523 89:85 mum
.395 3.8: :92? 8:85 g
.353 ..c 538::8 38:3 g
.352— ouauga oat—:33 g

88:85 cc: .5393
inf—U 3.3m
voom ac 5.380 829 3 3:1 5.28.5. «mam
85:95

—gfi—>mmun= CO nun—OEQhfludG—h— aO—nm Hg

2335.88 1.88% as: 3.330

hfi

rd.

2

mg

 

m0m30m

zone—monomm an: .02 zogmommn :92.
ZO—B—mOmOmm

Gog—.558 v .8355
mé mango k0 macaw—302$ iZO—Emomomm QZ< ZO_9<N_Z<UmO

$535.88 .< Nun—Zflmfi

90¢ ZOmmmA

 

E]: m .38 : a: 20:5: :5 553:5 ac: .6 55395 503::
.8: :8: 9.: 8:53—58 :5. <5. 3 -358 v:: 3.8: .8: 8:83.. 8:85 5
3.35 comm .3 553:5 8:85 cm
50 m .835 905:3 @0533: :5 a:
35.5: 8:53—53 :08 :35 55 85.8
50 m down—boo : 3
3633 a :8 32: 8:35.. Sum <8 8::
mm: m .32: 85 33
2: 3 t8 2: 2 age. 2:. 3.: 8x:
50 m .8395 9:55: @503»: :5 a: 35
3: on 8:53—58 :08 :35 5 32K
80 m .22:
yo: on 355:: 82958:
30.53 8:83.38 v08 :35 gm v38
50 m .395 9:5. 553—38 3 , 3:5 3: v.6 5.: 35 305::
.8593»: ac: 3.05:8 :98 :35 $5 «8.8 .358 1:: 3.8: :08 553 8:85 a
35:5 3:35 m ~
3.88: .3 5339.935 :6
.350: ..o 558::8 53:3 38
.352: 5323: 055—35 98
3:5 59.93 3
@050m 205—850;: "ma—>9 .Oz zogmommn— v55. 90¢ ZOmmHA
ZO—B—momcm:
2:55:58 v .3525

:5 9550 50 5555302! iZOZLmOQOmm 572 20953—72050

28:55:85 .< Nmfiznmmm<

33% 83:8 . 53:3 .2533 8:
as

3255 SEE . .3353 .2395 8:

 

8323‘ 153.5 «a
d: :35 #9:
57:35 3
no§>fiu< .3838 can 3753—0 Qv
63.233
:55 can out: ..c 3250 8:55 g
62.3
:38 can 9&an ..o 3032...: 3385 g
mmo m “doom—.38 28 3.8 55
85380 .35 .8303 32m Econ».
-58 a 5:: .88 53. 223 3.8
$0 m .398 356238
a 5? ages 68. 53 32.3 <8 «38
mmOm $6.8 v2.33? dag—.38 28 5:? 99580
cave—38 28 55 3395 53m (mm 53a 1:5 .33 22.3 ..o 5395 9:358 RN.
€025.88 3.3m 30m .3 383955 2385 cm
momDOm ZOE—monwomm mm; .02 ZOgmomm—Q £39 EU< ZOmmmA
ZO—Emomomm
23:: 3.88 v .3355

9m mam—go m0 moan—4307a. A<ZOr=mOmOmm 92¢ 22.—3573335

Ava—53:03 .< EQZHmm<

.35. B28 28
.35.; 9853 9:582
623—.— 098586—

éze 35... .o 3.32 £95

.35.? ..o 2E2— cmauga 05.5309

Jan—a 30:3 ha Emma: 0.5302
.8va €95 3 5 :3
.392.— 05 .533

330% can 033.5

EGGEOHQQGOE OFF

.0333 he 93.5 .8 2:8 ..an
698 .33

3.8". 5 Eu: 3.. $.33 0398
603 23.5 Ecru

accEtcA—xm 05 a: aom

.25 s :33 8
Em: coo: 8:29 350:? 3:85

cons—é 2: 8:85

comuamzagfi 2E.

88

88

am

No

flu

 

HomDOw

ZO—Bnmomomm

mag .02
ZOE—moaning

a 53955

zogmommn—

ca mam—E420 no mama—302$ iZOF—mOQOmm DZ< ZO_&<N~Z<U~—O

$255.53 .< 592mmm<

£9;

90¢ ZmemA

.55... .35.... £96 88

.323.— ..o Emma; omega 055.309 g
.22.. «3:5 .3 222— 9:.ch g
.553.— 05 .863 a

 

c.893— vca 3.325 on
3.3% 22o
.3. .35.... 3192039580: .3
ice. 03.6.:—
ncovoiacu 2: 3:33 {at
E... m 2.. =. 32» 3 :52. 35.... 88o a. 8......
$0 m .2»: 2: a. .63.. Eat
52.. 32.. 3 5...... 35... 880 <8. «88
30 m 4.8.. 2.. a. .38 ...2. 8 2.32..
SE.— 395 3 :53 3.3... 39.0 gm ~88 98 .13. E 3.3—.— .33 3:35 88
333»— 3:85 w
.329 35...... 2.32. .396 38
.352.— ..c 292. mug—26 055.35 g
.23... 30:3 ac Emma; 9:632 g
3.8—.— 2: .533 mg
whooom v.8 033.5 .8
3:85 v.3 95.302 ad
momDOm ZOE—8&0?“ mags .Oz ZOEmUmm—Q xmfiv PU< 20mm":
ZO—Emomomm
Avozcucos m .3325

mi mmmgo m0 momma—3072 1203.52.33 QZ< ZOZRN—Zfiumo

33:35.8 .< Hangman—c.

mmO m .595 5:...
2m: 05 E untOuu 3:2.— 330

$0 m 56:; E3
#31 05 5 9.36.5 Sea—n 395

.829 3:2: .3 .532— 5.3.5
.353 .3 Emma: among: 05.5309

.88.? be 232. 2:93:
.852.— 05 .333

«2%: 28:. .23
{am can fins E 23.5 3.836

6.83% can 9:632

downy—.8 33250 23
E 33 2: =2. ova—n can .33

2.36 231: .35

6.8.8 83>?— 3 30: 3:85
..33 33 .5qu

26:2. 53 Baa—n £92? 8585

£33388 a 3.. 35.5

98—00 359,3“— 8 30: 3:85

Sh— v88
Sam ”88 .Sca—m mo 98.8 3.830

8253.88 1.893— 33 2:38

«"8
:8
38

:3

an

ad

on

 

momDOm ZOE—gown

mm?—. .02
ZOr—LmOmOmm

zogmowma

$035308 m 5312.0

«é mmmgo m0 Noam—43079 iZO—E—meomm QZ< ZO—akN—Zfiomo

Goacscos .< N—QZm—mn—<

x92.

90¢. zowmma—

32.3 .c 2&2. 253»: 88
.353.— 05 53:3 98

3.33: 38oz can
{an 15. Emma E 350 3.530 or

$33.: ea: 0.5302 he

80 m .93. 3a
a E Bozo» 53 33¢ 25 3 in:
2.3 89c @968 3:53 39.» .330 SE >38
mmo m is. so.
a 5 :35 EB Eu: 2: 8 {at 3.3—.—
of So».— ..268 3:2.— Bapm 331$ <2..— 038 ..o 3.8 can 53:53 3.825 38
.8sz 35% .o 222. £35 :8
.35»:— uo 2mm:— omduog camp—:33 38
30:3 ..c 222. 95302 38
.35... 2: .835 :8

3.33m Boga and
fan was Ems E 39.0 033.5 fl.

@8on can 9:532 9m

35.3
..o 3.8 can 53:58 otouAO $8

Gosfiucouv 3.3mm: Vacuum can
fan can 224 E 39.0 3.830 up

 

momDOm ZOF—mOmOMQ mags .02 2033—5530 K29 90< 208mg
ZO—B—mOmOmm

83:35.8 m .3325
m4“ mam—EEO m0 mam—4302! iZOF—momomm Qz< ZO—bg—z‘l‘wmo

33:358 .< Nun—Zak:

201

62.2.. ..c 3.3 can EEG—.8 «3030

.8sz 35... a. 2%.. :95
3:23 .3 29¢: cum-.56 2:53an
Jam—.5 5.. 220: 0.5232

.35..— 05 58:3

8:30: 6.83% can
{an we: 2&5 E 330 3.530

Egon 1.3 9:632

.353 ..o 3.3 can 538:8 3.330

.8sz 35.... a. £32. £30
.353.— ..o 29a: 09933. 2:58qu
. duo—73 ha Emma: 0.5.32
.352.» 05 58:3

3:203 33 can
fan can Emma E 395 3.830

1.83% can 0.5302

.353
..o 3.8 .53 538:8 3.330

.329 3.3... .o 2&2 £96
.852; .3 Emma: cacao: 058.333

€253.88 «Emma: 280m 33
3.89 can 2mm..— 5 330 3.830

mg

g

3..

ad

3..

ad

on

 

mogOm

ZO§~§O~E

mm; .02
ZOr—LmOmOxm

ZOEmUwflQ

Goa—558 m .5325

m6 mum—EU m0 mam—4302! 4540—9880”; 92¢ ZOF§~Z<U-O

32:55.8 .< EDZHEE<

S29

90¢ 20%

:25 .22.

 

2: :2 v8: :3: 2:5 2::— 3::E <8. was
2 m 2.8.. .3: :8: 2:5 .
2 222:: 3:— 8: 3:2: <5. 3ch .18:
:2: m ...8. 18.. 35.: 5:. 23: :2: 8: 35.... 22.3 8:85 82
- 532.08
.5: in: ..o :28 38:5 gm
E6 m 2:8 :5 ES:
:8: 2:5 Eu 8: a: 3:2: <8. «38 :33 20:: .3: 838.. 02.839 ~82
.25: >3: . .
2m: :5 3 :26:— 3:2: 880 :25
80 m .31 as.
2:: 2: 5 :32: 35.... .35 «m: 3:8 .mzm 8 3.2.2 8.5.85: 88
838% “95:8:— w
:32» .838 .86:
2: 2:2. :5 3 :95:— 3:2: 3:..0 g
mmo m. .23: .826: hoe: 2:2:
2: 2:2. :5 2 5.6.8 3:2: 23.5 <25 :88 ..o :28 .5: :2558 3.830 g
.629 35.8.. 232 is: 88
2:2: :0 23:..— om:.~o>: 0:25:35 g
58:3 ..o 22:2 95:82 a
2:2: :5 .853 g
8:292 3822
2.89 25: 2mm.— 2 880 96:30 .2.
53:28.3:— 2: 25—500 36
momDOm ZOE—8:052 mm: .02 zogmommn 22,—. BO< ZOmmWA
ZO—B—monfivm:
28.5388 a 85:20

9m 9532.5 :0 mama—30732 A<ZO~§mOmO~E DZ< ZO_E<N—Z<Um0

3.52508 .< EDZEQA<

.833 2:2: 3 9.38:: 8:85 8:
.3sz 23:3 2:2 3 9.36:: 8.55 8:

 

83:6 2:»: c—
u:::.—::\— 88n< :6
:Nr: a. 28:: :3: 2:5
:22: .35 8:83 395 2E: 32 3
:::5:8 :2»: :5 :: MEBPE 2:2: «N g
n5: 9 2:8: 82:5 3 8: S
2 8: a2»: a: 2 :85 93:82
822.38 :5 :2 28:: :: 28:: 2 Sn 285:»:
823:2: 2:2: :5 :2 :38: 8:..0 ax ammo: -382: 25: 8:228 :5 8820 £52
.8288» m:_.z:: ::::E 28555 2:95
.522. 3:2: 3:2: 8g
2:553:82: 2 888:
act—:5 :8: 3:2: :0 :E:: :29 9g
:2: B .18: m:§:E .8: .883 23: 2:
5:3 3.8:: :::: :5 :a: 3:2: <3. :38
3.98:: ::::
:5 :o :88 2 822 5:2: :5
2:2: : 829:?— 5222:: 823 :38
83:3
28: 2: 3:2 85 :2 =8 285:3 2.85:»:
:55 M82 : .8: 38m :8 3:2: :23: .882: :o 85::298 3 :822 «8:
285.5882: 5:3:— 2:
m0~50m 20:58:02”: m:?:. .02 7:05:50me «82—. 90< 20am:
20::m0:0::
33:58:: a 88:20

«A: mmm§0 :0 mam—23022 120—95809: 02< 2029<§z<0:0

28:25:88 .< EDZH::<

 

351 Be ...8. .52.... .89 .8:
«539% ecu—n .8.— covgc :8 u— 82

«3:38qu 50> 9553.5 2
97:35 fig

57:35 N a
.2»: 36598 E 3.35 g
Eu: :35 3o: 8%
can 3235 3.35 «8—
.v3» “ca—m AN"

35:33 .8325 a g

uoa$nu< 1:230 «fin
momDOw zogumomomm "9:3. .02 2053:0me xmfia 90¢ ZOQOA
29.5250?“
2.02558 a .5355

$5 mum—go mO mama—302! A<ZO_.§mOn—Omm DZ< ZO~B<§Z<UmO

32.5288 .< Nun—Zak:

6:05:55 .3 53.3298 c.393—

éo>oE9~ 32.258 :23 3:2:
me 5395 ..c 32389.: 5.89;
626:8.— ucovoefioo 55 3:2:
.3 526...» .3 323:3»: 8:85
.358
+398 3:30 .3 3.93.— 3225—

833:0 2: 8:85
:osamsngfi 25.

$803.55 55 3:2: 93:96
.352: .8925

.598 2:2. : 5 3:2: 9.3m
2:2: 953 3 3.8 vegan—um
:39: 33.8 ..o
3350.. ..o 5:952:82. £825
£839? .332: .8025
2:89? .322: :53
.233 :3: “E2:
.532? .822: «a
38:0me .3 55:53:62. 53:3

2.3m :3m “:2:

88

N6

Hm

 

mOmDOm

ZO—F—mOn—Oflm

amt. .OZ
ZOE—momom:

@ .236

zomgmowma

wé mmmgo :0 momma—302$ $205520?“ 02¢ ZO~9<N~Z<O¢O

82.528: .< EQZHBE<

S28

90¢

20mg:

a... 8 as. .330 88
Add .5 3580.532: Eoowm g
.35.... .3 Exam»: 2.532 g

 

Ecuam was 030.30 a c
380m 1.3 «.5232 ad
.2395
539.» 32.: man—o 3 5a.. gown—3.5. ~89.
6:93» 5395 .23..— 3 53 3.3.8.5. 88
6.32»
5393 ass—n ..ou >3— ..33 cm :5 88
2330 nan—O no 38 05 803.55 m
.3... ca 3589—5336 Eouom 38
.43.. as 2»: 5 :5... 83m 88
.35.? ..o Emma: 9:532 88
3552332 75:: @525 was 8—52 v
1.3“. .3 is: 2:6 58:23 .33 88
.3521 95.8 93:85 93
.8: .85.. you or in 3:3.— abxo uom 88
6:25:08 .3233
was :33 352; ..o a: 3. 0.3105 88
acofitaxm 2: a: 3m n
momDOm ZOE—momOmm mag? .02 lousy—Qan— xmfir 90¢ 20mg:
ZOrSmOmOmm
Goa—.558 c .3395

mé mmmgu no max—@4302! $203880?“ Q72 ZOEZN—Zfiumo

33:35.8 .< EDZHLA—AV

.:d :a 3:059:53:— @3on
3:3: ..o 3:32 2:232

v.88: .23 3.525

v.83“ ecu 95302

$53659 3:955:

23 :25: .332» 3:2: 23:60

.352— 33. ..o 533::8 53:3

.329, 22¢: $9.96 2:533
65:95

5395 3:3: mam—u S 33. :o%::...—.

«2 S 3% ..an

.:d 5 35895388 326%

3:3: ..o 3:32. 95332

Bacon .5: 3.830

c.8993 "E: 95302

6:05:58 3:92.35:

25 :35. 5395 3:3: 22.—:00

.350: 32. ..o 333::8 £335

62:? 232. $396 05.535
.2395

526.5 3:3: nun—o 8 33. nouns“;

2.2.5253 Eooom ‘5: 3.830

38
58

38

£8 4

38

$8
«“8
-8
23

em

.5

no

mé

v6

 

momDOm

ZOgumon—Omm

mm: .02
ZO—E—momcmm

Evan—momma

$25558 w .8325

9m mmmgo ho mamagozx iZOF—mcmomm DZ< ZO~E<EZ<U-O

$25353 .< EQZQEA<

:92.

BO<

20mmm5

mmo m .931 .333 sop—a
oz. 3.8? 2: E 3.3—.— :aom
mmO m imam 7:33 .8. 3.2%
2: 5 do. :25 3e new 53
«coca—boo £655 35:.— caom

dos—g £30: owns; 38: 32.0.5
.32.; 290: $9.96 055.5309
ing—M mun—o S 33. 3.3.3.9

N:— :o 53» £920

.3d .3 35895308 380%
.352.— ..o 333m: 95302

<& 2%

.383 3:; s

<o~m g @2533 3 3 $23 598— 3:85

.329, 2me: «was; £8: €3.95
.32: £32. omega 055L309
£995 man—o 3 33» “£329

«3 S 3% flaw

3... no 35895385 330%
£23..— ..o 3530: 95532

@8qu van 95302
33.; Emma: was»; 38: «9895
.32.; Emma: among: 055.805

..EEM mun—o 3 33. gown—3.x“.
.mfin no 35 £395

825558 «:83— vca 3.825

$3

om

hm

9w

 

momDOm 205595?"

mm? .OZ
ZOE—mOmOmm

2053—3039

825.858 m .8355

eé mam—5:0 m0 HUQHABOZM iZO—Emeomn— Q24 ZO~9<N~Z<O¢O

2.2.5258 .< N—DZm—mm<

v3.29

BO<

ZOmmmA

0.31 .0..0>00 0050 :35

 

000.6 ..0 t0 0.00.0310: 05 50.03.50 000003000 05 00
5 3:03 05 .80 0:: 5.0.8 0.5. «EN 3:2: 05 3 00:00:05 505: 000005 «a:
£035 00» 3:0... 05 00
0—03.50 0:000:38 5:0... :00m SQN
00—00?
09.5 ..0 005 3:0 8:03 :03 00:0..00000
b0 00.... 5:0 _0>_...~0 0:50.300 808 359.8 55 00000—500 0:00:30 8:
.0020... 230.. 0m0..0>0 3.0: 00:00...— 38
.0032. £30; 0m0..0>0 055088 88.
£005 000—0 3 300 0000505~ mg
.0. .0 S 30.. £80 88
.3 .0 :0 05008000000:— v..000m $8
.300... ..0 02—90.— 0000002 mg
2003. 0:0 0.50002 Q0
mmo m .805 5.3 0005
00 :03 00 0030 30.5 0:000—
-.08 32...; 3.3... .20.. 2.. a. 5.0 380
000 m 083.08 2.20.3
0005 :05 0030.. 30.5 0:00 <§m
.208 5.3 3.3... 0.8.. 2.. :. <80 808
mmO m .3000 05 E =03
30..» 00000.58 55 3:05 <2”.— 8R5
mmo m .500 05 5 :03 30.8 00: .3 .0 :0
00 00000—5000 00055. 8:05 <N~m 8me coco—.300 ..0 5500.... 0050.5. 9.005 .8—
?005308 pd
HomDOm ZOFEOmOmm mm?—. .02 205.58me :92. BU< ZOmmmA
ZOE—momomm
2000:5008 w .3055

9m mam—Ego no mgmaaozx 4420—9500233 DZ< ZO—Bfi—fiOmO

2000:5008 .< Hangman—4V

 

5.: a .9. as: a as. 123.. :2:
5... 32m 3 2»: a8: 3%: <2. «.88
E]: a. .395 3 3:39 maze» .Bcai .5. 2m: can
3.. .38 03.5.5 macro—boo <2. mama cacao—.38 ..c 28325.— 8..an g
a: H 633.218 um «cove—.38 05 E
10.83 v8.“ 05 Sea 0% 2.5
can Sumofichmcaosn 3 £325
93 is. 2: E :39.» 9.5.5 Sn mug
gm 9 .18.. 5.3 3m n83...
n: 8:33 3333 58 ”:2.—
2: .2»: a5 E 5595 cad—n a
to :8 33.2.38 2: :25» «x 38m
.323
05 5 823 :55 .8303 32m
3:25:96 2m: 2: E 3.85 98m
80m .2»: 2: 5 52:»
macaw—boo 3055 can
5? 35..— 53 .o 222 5
5 858:3. £3: 3 325. 4&8— ~88
m 80 m 282.38 855 ~85
52: 50:5 395 mecca—.38 6:35:39 “couch? .535
55 35.... .33. £3. 2: 5 35 88a 52.5 233 .o 3.32 8:85 8a
.339, Emma: omega 2.25809 a
sin...“ and—o 3 33. 5835.5. 38
.2 d S 5% £80 98
.3 d :c 3:088:32: @825 «v8
.353 ..o 3:20: 9:532 58
330% ES 9.5232 .3
momDOm ZO—E—momomm mm?—. .02 ZO—Emommn xmfiu 90¢ 20mm":
ZOE—monomm
8253.88 o .8395

ed mmmgo m0 mam—4307a ézcrfimomomm QZ< ZOE<N~Z<U¢O

83:3:on .< 592mmm<

211

 

6:32.93 ..o 330ng an .89
6:80.58 2.: 98 22.3% Em— ~8~
.27535 SE
.EEEPBO .8 a:o.ou.>.§>;o< 3:330 83
23.359333... .2225 a:

3333ko 3:230 36
.539?qu 529""..— g
.959 a cm 3.3... .3 323.26 323.5 mg
Jags—tags no 53:53.8 3 .333 g

€283.83 Ecumm can 0.5332 mm

momDOm 205.595?“ mm?—. .02 zonal—momma $93. 90< ZOaHA
ZOrEmOmOmm
825.558 m 533.5

9m mam—Esra m0 mama—302$ A<ZOF_mOmOmm DZ< ZOF<N~Z<U-O

€359.58 .< x—QZm—n—m<

APPENDIX B

Psychomodeling Instrument

Name

 

PRODUCERS TEST

Form 0

Edward L. Smith
Charles W. Anderson
Gerald W. Lott

Institute for Research on Teaching
Michigan State University

January 22, 1982

212

213

Partl
1. Do plants need food?

Why or why not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Describe what 199;: is for plants?

 

 

 

 

 

3. Do plants need light?
Why or why not?

 

 

 

 

 

214

4. If you opened a lima bean seed what would it look like? You may draw a
picture.

Label the picture if you can.

5. A man wanted to have an early garden. He planted some tomato seeds in
small boxes. He kept the boxes in a closet where it was warm and dark. He
watered them whenever the soil started to get dry.

What do you think happened to the seeds?

 

 

 

Why would this happen?

 

 

 

 

 

215

Part II

Choose one answer for each question. Circle the letter for the answer you
choose.

1. Most plants get food

a. from soil.

b. from air.

c. from water.

d. by making it themselves.
e. ldon’t know.

b

2. To egin growing from seeds, plants do mt need

water.

light.

warm temperature.

the part of the seed called the cotyledon.
I don’t know.

9.0-9.5!”

3. Seeds planted in the dark would

a. grow the same as seeds planted in the light.

b. grow shorter than seeds planted in the light.

c. grow taller than seeds in the light and then die.
d. not grow at all.

e. I don’t know.

4. When do plants make their own food?

a. never.
b. in the light.
c. in the dark.
d. in the light and in the dark.
9. ldon’t know.

5. Which living things mintheir food?

only animals.

only- plants.

both plants and animals.
neither plants nor animals.
I don’t know.

999??

216

. Which living things make their own food

only animals.

only plants.

both plants and animals.
neither plants nor animals.
I don't know.

9.0-9.5!“

. For plants food means

water.

water, soil, air, and light.
water, air, and light.
fertilizer and minerals.
something they make.
ldon’t know.

. When do animals make their own food?

”99999

a. never.
b. in the light.
c. in the dark.
d. in the light and in the dark.
e. ldon’t know.

. When someone says that plants make their own food, they probably mean
that

a. plants make materials that are then used for growth and energy.

D. plants make leaves, roots, and stems from materials like water and
air.

c. plants use water and air for energy.

d. I don’t know.

217

Part Ill

Write T by the number of the statements you think are true. Write an F by those
you think are false. Write ? if you do not know whether it is true or false.

1.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

@NP’WPSQN

 

Seeds contain food for new plants to use to begin growing.
Seeds need light for new plants to begin growing.

Plants use food from the soil to begin growing from seeds.
Some seeds can be used as food for animals.

Green peas that you eat are seeds.

Plants use water as food to begin growing.

The whole seed gets bigger as a new plant starts to grow.

Part of a seed gets bigger and another part gets smaller as a
new plant starts to grow.

Seeds do not have any-value as food.
Plants must have food to live.
Animals must have food to live.
Plants can get energy from the sun.
Animals can get energy from the sun.
Plants get food energy from the soil.

Animals get food energy from the food they eat.

218

An Experiment

John planted two bean seeds in good soil and watered them. When the plants were
still very small, he put one plant in the sunlight and one plant in the dark.

Liam Dads
x/ Cotyledons \T
52%

«:12

h.—

 

 

  

Write T, F, or ? for each statement about this experiment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

16. The plant in the light will live longer than the plant in the dark.
17.__ The plant in the dark will not grow any more.

18. The plant in the light uses food from the cotyledons.

19. The plant in the dark uses food from the cotyledons.

20. The plant in the light makes its own food.

21 ._ The plant in the dark makes its own food.

22. The plant in the light uses food from the soil.

23. The plant in the dark uses food from the soil.

24.___ If the cotyledons are cut off, then the plant in the light will stop

growing. Explain your answer.

 

 

 

25.

 

219

If the cotyledons are cutoff, then the plant in the dark will stop
growing. Explain your answer.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Data Collection Instruments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8...... 58.53 285930 2.9. ammo; 22.56
...,...Eaa
2.25 Sofia. :2...
9225.5
292.5me 209.230
.3 m3... 2322.220 .338 5:03... 2.3

EOMwOmm mOZ<mO A<DEMOZOO

 

221

”FEE—Sm comm?—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

macmfiEoO mouaom 080.5 .w
355.50 in... 3:52 0.80. «5:.
0039.25 once—>35— ?cfifioafit 3353‘
0030m>0m * comma; Eauuohm 0050006 3.5

EOE—AXE MUZ<EO iDEWUZOU

 

222

CONCEPTUAL CHANGE PROJECT

DATE TASK # RELATED PROGRAM TASK

 

 

TASK DESCRIPTOR

 

 

TAPE # FRAME NARRATIVE

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

AZQ ad 058v

08.. .08. 223 0
Ann 3 Opp—3v

0000 6.5.580 u

3.00m
00.3.83

00000 0.8 0000 a
3:0

03.80 00.8. .00 N
8003808020:
>80 008— 1:0
0.398080080— £05

:2. 35.53. .8 0

8::00 8 8::00 m

0000 .1000 08:3 2
.8090 08m .0000 08:3 2
8: 0000 6.0580 A

30.5 8: 0001 0.0080 x

8: 00 60:08.8.— 0: A
00:08.8.— 0: .00 x

080 0:0 >80 m

0050500
3800805 08080 0
800. 800.808 .8 0: 0
.000— 0000808 .8 0: 2
0.0000 0.8 080 2
..00203: .8 0.80 098. 0: A
0.80 0.5-80.0 ..080 0: x

00000. 00
.8 20:05 8: 08 0000 m
000» 00000 0.000 0
8.088: 08 2
20000 .3 :080 0A 8::00 2
0000 8: 0.8 A

00005
80 8: 0001 0000 08:3 0
0000 600080 m
.8090 000». 0.8080 <

0.. 60:08.8.— 0: m
00:08.8: 0: .8: 00 <

0.80 0:0 :05 0.88 0
800 v00m k

.000— ..:000_.$00.. m
~000— ..0z.580.. 0
02300 a .5550 0
..00205. .8 0.80 00.8— m
080 00:38.0 5080 <

00000 0.8 0000 r.—

..80 3.5 0

305—00: 08 0

20000 3 :080 on :00 0
0000 0n :00 m

08.0 30: 05 35 30.5
30: 00030003 0.80 00000 0.5.

00:00.08

:05; 30.8 00: 0303 0:0
08.8000 :03? 30.8 00: 0303
:000380 0:0 0.0580 05,—.

A 0080208
00.80 08: 00: 0303 080m

080—0 30: .8 000.500 00
000808000 00000 0:0 0.0880

 

:00 .80 ~ 000.500 8: 0.8 x 080.0 30: .8 000.500 00 :00 < .80 0000 00 328008000 0020
3.85— 0.:00 700 5.5 0202259644 2.): 05<> gm
805000000 .0083 ZOE—m000m0

mZOrE w000m049402

 

m20r§m000m0 920200200

mawivz .52: 900000050 m=0m £00 mmgm i20—E—m000m0

.Q Egan—0:0.

=00

8000 0000 8m
.0—80 .8 03w: :0 w

30..» 3

£0: 08.. 35...
.20: s :8 0

£0: 5 0.8

0000 0>0£ 080—0
20: 5 as. 0

80.0 05 00.5.80

:0000300 05

m:0>0:8.. £80 .8:
Em: 8500: :0 a

0:00

.80 0000 000.5000

:000380 .0080 .8:

 

 

Em: 8500: :0 N
20:
:0 3:0 0000 :30 00:0000: 0003 0.85 3 .30300000000 0000000 3808:»:
:85 085 080—0 0000 800000800 :0 300m 3 00:00:00
.23— :0 3:0 g 08: >05 .3»: 00 8000—300 05 50503 00:05
83000805 m
.0350 8: 0000 N
8:050 .0308 0:0—0000.508 05
0830—0320 a 8030 08m A 00 A0000 008000 800.300 0.5.
0000:0808 0:0—0 30: 05 3:0 30.5
830000005 0 00: 0000000000 080 00000 25.
A305— 0.:00 7.9 5.0: WEE<ZMEA< 00.5 0305 02430
22:02.20 .80": 205000000
m20—Em000m040202 m20r§m000m0 920200200

w0m>a<2< .52: 5000000000 mzom 0:0. 20...— mmgm 4102008500050

00:50:08 .0 Nun—2H0:

0.05:8):0...

0..» .80 0000

000.800 800.300
2.. .0... a .3 0

.00 0.05.:0.
m:.:00:_ 0. m

8:00N
00.

2.5.
.8 Eu... .8: 0000 v
:5 £0: 5 .08.. 0
3:0 0.80 :. .0000 N

030

000.. .80 0.80 0:0
20: 5 .82. 0

30:0. 0.8000 .0

.8: 00 v

30.5 .00 a
30.00.. .8: 00 N
30.583. .00 .

008800: 0: .0000
80.880.538.800 0000 n.
.80...
2.0 005?. :000.
$80 0.... m:.>0..:0~. 0
.2. .80 0.800 2
0.80 .8: 0000 2
20: .3: .80 .—
00:0800.. 0: .8: 0000 v.

305. 0.8000 .00 3

300m .8: 00 2

2: .8: 8 0
008800.. 0: .8: 00 v.

00: 000 0:0:

.000 0.88.80
50... 8.800000 0

.000 0.800000
:8... 8.080000.— <

.0000 .0009 n.

0.80 .0000 0

Eu: .0000 0
00:08.00.— 0: .0000 <

00.000 0.52 .00 ..

88:0 .00 0

..3.00.8...0 00.08 3 .00 0
03.0 08 005 00800.. .00 0.
5.00.. .00 m.

30.5 .00 0

0>.. .00 m

00:088.. 0: .00 <

..:0.0.0000._0. 00.803 08.8000
:033 30.8 .8: 000000 0:0
00:00.50 8:3 30..» .8: 00000.
800.300 0:0 0.95:8 2....

.08.. 2.2. 02. 2.23 3:20

.2520: 525.83 E
«8.0 M58» 05 .80 0000 000800

.8: 0000000000 800.300 2....

4:030:00. 3 0000 000:
02. 823 0.2.0:. 050 35.0

 

.305. 0.:00 .um.
80580008 .0001:

m20.....m000~.0.......02

.00: m>....<2~.mfi..<

.000 0...<>

 

m20.....m0n.0~.n. 920200.200

00:50:00. A. agmmg

"0.25....
20.....m0n.0~.n.

m.m>..<2< 9.20 meODnomn. 9.0m 0...... m0... mag... ..<20.....m000~.0

000....000

.0: 0:0 ...m: 0:0
..00 .0... .0303 a

000....000 .0: 0:0

..00 .0: 0:0 0303
.000 ..o 0.0 .20.. 0

000....000

.0: 0:0 ..00

.0: 0:0 ...m: 0:0
.08. a 8.5.0.8. .

..0: 00 0.08.500
05:00:. .. m

030v .00 «
03$ ..0: 00 .

...5003 .0: m

0303 .0: 0

.00 .0 N0 0000 2
:0..00000 .0000 2
000....000 0.

..00 v.

20.. 5.. 0
00:000000 0: .00 2
0.0 .00 S.

0303 .00 ..

=8 6.. 0.

0303 ..0:.00 0
0.0 ..0: 00 2
5000:0053. ..0: 00 0..

30:0 0

...E003 .
000000000300 2
0.0005:— 0
:0908 .0

00.0.0.0 5.100 m.
0.0 0

0 a... 0

0303 m

..00 .0: <

00500000 0: ..0: 00 0
0.0 ..0: 00 0

0303 ..0: 00 m

..00 ..0: 00 <

0.00.05.00.05. .00 m.
0303 .00 n.

0.0 .00 0

.002... 20.5.0.1... 0

300000.... 0.
.:0...0:00..0.030.5 000: 3:0...

..:0..000.0 E000 0000 0.0...
:. 00.3 ..0: 00.00. 3:0...

 

 

«000.0 0000 3.0:. 0. 00:0 0000 0:20.: 0. 00500000 .0000 00.0:— 0. 0.0.0306.
00.03 .20.. .00 . 00000 0: 3...»: ..0: 00 v. 0: ...,.000:0 3.0.5.3.. .00 < 00.. ..0: 0030. 3:05
.83; .5... 20.... .080
...,... 03.0030... 2.0550 2

..S. 2.0.. c. 6.. 0 .00.. 6.. 2 .00.. .8: .0 0 .2322?

0.000 :. 3:0 .00 a .50.. ..0: 00 A 2.0.. .00 m. .:0...0:00. :. 0000 :30

...m: :. 3:0 .00 . 00:000000 0: ..0: 00 v. 0.0... 3.0.: ..0: 00.000 3:0...

.305. ..000 .ua. .00.. m.>....<2~.m.....u.< .75 0.4.45 H.250.
050.802.. .80.... 2050000....

m20.,...m0..0~.....,..~...2

m20.....m0..0~.n. 320200.200

.00::..:00. .A. fifizmmg

m.w>..<z< 9.2.. mMHODDOZA. m..0m 0...... ..00. main. ..<20.....m0..0~.n.

is.
3 2m: 5 .8 a
2m: 5 .25 .8 _

232 «as w
53.8%. a
2m: 2:
E 352.. «a 55 .8:—n. u.

is. 2:. 2»: .525 N
Eu: E .25 68.3 n

x5 93 2»: £85 a
Eu: 5 Eco .595 g

2%....
8: 95 an; 3.8“. .2. O
.13 .01 A
E»: .3: 8 x

{3. 63.5 ..—
2»: .595 3: M

is. .58» a
£2. .3: a. x

=§§25 .3 a

is. .8: 8 m
2»: .8 <

@253. 28c
.13. 63.5 ..0: m
2% .52» <

:3. .2. m
2»: .2. <

6135;»: "comuficouv E 26.5
3 0:533 Go: £53 355 m

Aasmmos "gufiaafigv
32» 3 :53 is. 2: 5 355 m

.352»: "5358.
E 228 Stagnv 98 35E 0

.3355»:
E93858 5 :33 Eat 32»

3 :53 as. 3.33 35E m

 

£9555 ha £5. 3:2: mam—32:8 H
.:8 $0338.. baa 0 «30553393 E m coco—boo _
flaw—3a.: 3a.. 3:3 v .30 .23 NO .8: am I
in: £335 .3 .502... 3.83 m «00 .8: am U
..300 uses :8 a N8 .2 a =8 .2. a m
a can; :8 a =8 a. m E»: .3: a. a
3:053: 6553? Em: am 0 ha Jo: mm D
...E £5055 £9555 .fi 2 £955:— Jc: am 0
.2»: £3 poi—Emu E A Loam—3.5. Jo: mm m $353.25 39.
.8:—3.8.. £395 ~ 5395 .um x .833 Jo: am < Go: as: 85:.— ..a took 0
A32:— a.cov T3 5.5 maakzmmfinz 3.5931; - E a
223.32.. .89.: 203883..

mZO_E_mOmOmm-~.—DDS

 

wZO—E—momomm EZmZOmZOO

2595.238 .Q 592mm:

m—m>..—<Z< .SZD mmmODn—Omm m=om MIR :0...— mem 1205.5205—

2. .3. a
.c: 2. ..o: 2. a
2. ...o: 2. 2

:8. 8 2»:
2.8: 55 22. v
.305 3 2m: 18:
3:2: as...» .35. Em: A.
:8 ..5 as: :8. .0»
3:2: MES» .2.—2. .8 in: N
2.8222258
2.: SE... 2.8..
9% 3:2: m5...»

2.2. .3 2»: .2. .

=8 88.. 2x...
..12. .5: Eu: N

52.2.38 05 :3...

2.8.. .0» 8:2:
2.2. :o 2»: 2 .

2.2. 2.5. E»: n
2.2. 8:

E»: :_ .22»: a

2»: :_ 2:: .

2»: :_ 2:: a
2.2. .5 2»: 2 .

.o: 2. 69:82.... a: .2
8:82.... o: .2. a.

83:22:. 8: 2. a

2. 69:22.... a: O
8:229. o: ...c: 2. m

6.5.2.2... 2. <

8:829. o: 2:2. .2. O
2.8..
«2.38: 22.2.38 2:2. .2. m

8....
«22.6.5 52.2.38 .2»: .2. <

.2»: .2. o
.2.—2. .2. m
:02 2.2.6.:—
:2.2b8 69:22.... a: .2. <

2.22. 2 >55— ..:»o2. D

Eu: 2 26:: £502. x
.12. .2. ..— ._..2. ..o: 2. m
2»: ..o: 2. x 2»: .2. <
.12. Jo: 2. 2 .12. .2. O
2»: ..o: 2. 2 2»: .2. m

8:829. a: ..o: 2. v. 8:22.... o: .2. <

.395 3 3:3:8 3 Eu: 2.8:
Go: 222.. ..5. 38m 3 :33 3
E»: :8: 3:: 2.2.. 3:2:

2:228:95.

8:83 3:25:9—
":2.=.:8. 2 2.2.» 89... 26.5
3 5»... so: 2. .2.. 2:2:

A :2... 1.2.95.

3:83 3.25:»: n5.32:8.
2 9.: 3 256:8 Go: 2.2..
32.2.68 5.3 35.5

22.2.2»: ”:.2.:.:....
:m 396 3 253:8 Go: 2.\2..

32.2.38 .52....) 35.5

223.2»:
”2558. E 395 3 2.2»:8

so: 222.. 32.2.38 5.... 3:2:—

 

355. ..:2. .um.
€222.qu ...cuuu.

mZO.9.mOmOmm...—.ADE

23.x. m>§<zmmhh<

SJ... 034.5

 

mZO—Emonmomm aim—28.200

2.2.228. .G .GDZHAAD‘

@253
20 ..EmOmOmm

392792 .52: 9503905. m:0m m5. m0“. mmgm A<20r5m0mcmm

Eu: .5:

.2: 63:3 m2; ..00.
83:5 8. 330:: : a
305. 9:80.. a

.33 305.. 9:30.. .2. a

85mm...

afifiom .2: .5: 23:3 ..—
uofioms mcwzom

2m: .5: .2.: .883 v.

mm... 3.:5 3 .2. G

..00. 95.2: 8. 3:00.: < A .2 mfimfigmsczn. 2...

5:32;. 3.2: 3 .2. .
:8. .2 a: m
.388 .8. .2. O

 

 

..00. 8. .2. m 3.8:: 8. .8: 2. A. 235530.23 8. .2. .m
..0: 0.. v :85 R. ..0: 2. O :2...» o: .2. a
3:8: 8. .o: a 3.1.... 3 ..o: o: z .328: 3 .o: a
30.5.03. .2. N .80. 8.:5 ..0: 0.. 2 9.5.2.00. 3.:5 .2. O
38:: 30.5 ..0: 0.. A 305 .2. m 2:285... 3
8. ..00. 8.:5 .2. u g: .8: 2. v. :>: .2. < 2:: ..0:: ..0: 2.3... 3:2: N
..00. a:
£2. :8: .2.... 2 2:: a
$388.50
3...: 3 2::
..oo: 52: .23: :. 3:0 m
Em:
..25 3:2: .23: :. 3:0 v
32: 3 2::
..3: 3:2: .Em: :. ...8 a
..0: 59—. ..00.
8» 3:2: .28.. 8 Eu: N 2:228:08.
..00. 3.5: 3 in. 32:02. 3.8.5.3: 52.:509.
..3: 3:2: .22. :. 2:0 . ..0::2. 0:0: :. :>: 3 25.500 5:2: >
.305. ..:0.. Ta. .D-v.. mab<zmm92< .75 Q.a.<> H.255 .
222.22.. .8:“: 203808....

m20.9.m0m0::..9~.32

mZO.....mOn.Omn. ...ZHZOQEOO

m.m>..<2< 9.23 mamUDDOm: m..0m :2... KO:— mmgh 2<ZO.....mOn.O.E

2.25.58. .Q Egan:

APPENDIX E

.vofiomma 33 53399:. 2: 3:5 .3 538:: 23959. 33:52 £03353? 255 355339:— acomoaoh 9833 ”Mr—‘62

 

.Eosmmaoav 3:83 35.55”“:
Egg—.58 cm 38.» 3 253:8

coco—.38 2: 2553 3.35 ..—

 

.mBEM ant—$90350 2.:
3 A33 cue—£8 scam—.38 05,—. m

 

.35... >5: 2: 35 32m
32. mocvhooE 3.89 633 25. a

 

~<

.8638
5:3 39.» 32. 2.33 van
3538 5:3 39.» so: 253
coco—33 EB chin—o 25. O

 

.A 3522;
$39 93: Go: $.33 macaw m

 

 

 

.553 Bo: mo $958 on
saccaufiae 358 can £255
3.. 18.“ on 33:33”: macaw 4

 

ad

m6

n6

 

 

 

 

v6

 

Md «.0 3d 9m ad ad wan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nd

fin Ev m6 VJ. m.v

«a.

 

ad.

 

fin

 

 

mZOmmMA

 

mszmm a
zoEmomomm

 

 

ZOHBODumZH OZHMDQ DESEEEV. mm2<mm A<ZOH§mOmOmm

.M— “Gamma—Aw

231

€3.53: 33 553995 2: 3:5 .3 33:5: 530.52 33:52 £03553? 255 3:338:95 523.59. 9833 ”Mr—.02

 

a 68.. 93:. 3
Eatfiafiv 05 3a: .633 3:2: 4

 

.23..
Eu: ”Sagas 5 Be 55
:2: 3.2.. so: 3.23 3.33 v.

 

Agammaeg 05:8:
3:593 :25 39.» So: 833
.5: v2.83: :2? Boumco: ca
33 56238 “5: 295:8 05—. A.

 

.28 33:. Go: 353 353 _

 

a: .33..
E in: “Enacé 5 .53
M53» 05 .8» v8» 022...:

O «O 8 O O
< v< m4 m< N< < < 3.5 3%)ch 5.8.58 2E. I

 

<
c .Efizé 3 Se 82.
5 H 22. 2.23 32:5 2.3 355 c

.3 3 we we to no .3 c3 .3 8 3 1m .3 .3 S 5 a... 3. a... 2 3. 3. 552E ._
— mZOmmmA ZOrEmOmOmm

ZOHEODmEmZH UZEDQ nmEmEm< mmzém izoahmomomm
85:35.8 .m— 592mm:

mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

€3.33 33 53399:. 2: 3:5 ac .8:—=5: 8:30.59. 23:52 dozen—:33 2.3.: 35332.95 8:30.59— 9833 ”@902

 

.28..
as»: ”cog—.58 :m 258 59c

26...» 3 5MB 52. 2.33 3:2.”— m

 

933.5
~¢w m2

:40- as:

E

0539..

Q
4:4

:4
Ago

.3835
3a.— So: «5: 35:.— ..e gap.— 0

 

0!

<5

.333: 3
ASE—=89 ..atSaEv coo: 3.35 z

 

53:45:

v—

3
N

.eosasc :3 Ex...
:2: 5 2.3 38 2.33 355 2

 

 

 

 

wd

 

 

 

 

«.33 We

 

 

 

 

S .m .06 #6 Ed

 

Ev 9v «.6 ad. ad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E 3 Wm

 

 

m.”

 

mZOmmmA

 

gun a
ZOHBHmOmOMHm

 

203.253;va UZHmDQ magma: magma A<ZOrEmOmOmm

8355.88 .nm N—QZm—nmmaw

 

.398me 33 533%.:— 05 3:5 .3 .8355: 38959. 9.38:2 £952.83: «:25 3533395 33939. 9.3qu "Mr—.02

 

Quin—4::
u—1

.333»: ”55653
5 32m 3 283:8 38 at

23 22558 32:5 353 w a
8 8 o
«

 

23m:

.352»: ,
"536.88 E 39.» 3 255:8

Ga: 3.33 macro—.58 53 3.35 a.
m

 

3

325%: afiesé 5
32» 3 253:8 3a: 2.33 3.35 m

 

.Snumo: ”3583:88
39.» 3 5mm: “12. 05 5 3:55 a
m an

a g H 3
3.... .3 .8 an E an an

mZOmmmA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.252»: ”Enacsv
S 3 no we 1..an

5 43.8 ”b.8923 0.8 Bea—n— G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fin b6 9v v6 ad ad. fiv fin

 

 

 

gum ..
zoEmomomm

ZOHEODmEmZH UZHmDQ magma: magma ASAOEEOmOmm
Guscscoov

 

 

 

.um Nun—7am:

.333me 33 swung—95 23 353 ..o .5355: 353.59. muons—:2 $33553? 2593 35332.95 3:30.52 98.30..— "Mr—.02

 

v—
«A

.A 1233:3325 $8

 

03¢

93:88

§~:—

mega

.2235
3 2m: .52. as. 823 355 N

 

.3033an3

3:33 3.8.5:»: ”.8385”:
E 3: 3 253:8 3.33 w

 

82

oz

.395 8 05:3:8 3 2w: too:
So: 353 can 395 3 a?
3 2m: 32. 32. 2.33 35: x

 

.303239—5 3:33 3.26
3:»: E33553 5 £83 59¢
39% 3 Enos 38 3.33 3:53 >7

 

 

 

.Eossaes 0383 33%;»:
3:38.38 5 g: 3 253:8

32. 3.33 332.38 .35 3.35 >

 

 

ad

pd

 

o6

 

ad

 

 

 

 

cud

 

m6

 

 

3 man We «a S 5. a... 3. 3. 3 3. 2”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wZOmmmA

 

 

a .
2995895

 

ZOHEODmEmzm UZHmDQ szmam< mag/2mm éZOrSmOmOmm

Goa—amazes .H Hagan:

 

APPENDIX F

533:8: 23 853 :o .8385: 3:08.59. 83:52 do>3a:..3_: 8:8»: 353388: 3:38:9— 8833 ”mEOZ

.308: «:3

 

AS33383 3:83 3.8.5:»:
“:o3_v:8v :: 38m 3 253:8
:30—58 23 2.233 3:2:

 

£38» 32:33.55”. 23
an A3? mugs“: :30—58 2.9

 

3:2: Bo: 23 35 38M
3:: 325.83 3.8: :83 2E.

 

62—83:
:23, 38» 3a: 2.33 .5:
393:2. :23 26.5 So: 353

:30—.38 6:: PCAEQ 2i. 0

 

“4:59:92:

.2 3532:

3.8: 26: 3:: £53 2.2% m

 

918m

 

 

 

 

m
¢
8
a

3:3: 3»: .3 88:8 3
38:82:”: £80m «E: 225::

.8: c8: 2— 335838 38m <

 

g

 

mo:

30

6.3

 

 

 

«to

ad

:0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a: S: 22 3:3 «A

2:

 

 

 

S «6.3: 3. :

 

 

mZOmmma

 

ZO—B—mOmOmm

W

 

 

2mm >m magma: mum—32mm A<ZOHEHmOmOmE

.h N—QZHAHQ

3.3.03: 33
533:8: 0.3 0053 .3: 33:5: 3:08.50.— m..03:.:z .00>3::..3_: 05:3 353339.: 3:08.50: 9.0303 "@602

 

.25.
2:: ”Size: 5 .3: 5.6
:2: 2.2.. :2. 823 352: x

2:238:23 03:83
33300 :03; 32M 3:: 0303
m5: 3:030:33: :03? 39% 3o: 2.
33 :30—500 6:: 90350 03:. n.

Nah-12

3
O
O

 

 

...aga

.08.. 2.2: as. 833 3:2: _

 

<m Q
<
<m8'.

.28:

2:: ”53:58: 5 as...

use» 0.3 .8: 38.3 032::
3:: 0025023 :30—58 03:. I

O
amaa

 

U

.2303 s as: 22.

3 NH 3 3:: 2.33 22:53:: 3:2 3:2: 6

 

 

 

 

 

|Q<mo 53 O

 

flfl<mo

mg...— .3
ZO—B—mOn—Om:

8
Cu
(O
N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iflfifiafiflflflfiflfldflflfifl
mZmema

 

 

 

 

2mm >m QmSmEm< mmamm «Ezogmmcmomm
2303:3508 .m gnaw—mag.

 

4.3.5me 83
53338; 05 «0:5 .3 .8:—=5: acumen—o.— muoafizz 6339—53.: 2.8.: 35362—93 330.59. 333‘— ”HF—.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an _
NU O
M a:
a a .55333
n m m a 32:28". ..atoaafiv 13: 3.35 2
E
<
0
w
a
z
8
A ..— ms—
Nx «x M v— vvm a!
«a A5353: 59¢ 68%
a a a :05 5 9.3 as. 833 35a z
4.8.. 3383
air—358V on: Go: 333 3.83 ..—
mo& 20 he «.6 ad 30 ad 26 23 math.” a.» fin «Emmi «xv :0 2m @235 u
mZOmmm—A ZOZLmOn—Omm

 

 

 

2mm >m QflZflEQ mwzém 4420559253
Goscscoov .m Nae/Eng

dotomma 33

533995 05 «25... mo non—=5: 23959. 33:52 .32353? 2.8.... 35332.05 33959. 3033 ”QSZ

 

.4293 ”3:33:83
39.» 3 £32 {an 05 S 355 m

 

Axum—5.3: “ccsmecos
E 228 Stan—03V 0.8 3.83 G

 

mm

<m

.35.
in: ”5:883 5 €03 .55
as» 3 :32. as. 323 255 A.

 

2

309...}

ED

:40

..JIO

Am—atoeaEV
3a.. so: menu 35:.— ..ou cook 0

 

 

 

20

 

he

 

v.0

 

m6

 

 

 

 

 

 

EU

2 2.... Sofia—E

 

 

an 3

 

 

«5. 3

 

«xv

 

 

51

E ~m8<NOE

 

 

mZOmmm—A

 

a; u
ZOE—meanin—

 

me wm Omzmafi mmgém éZOHEHmOmOME

83:55.3 .m 52%?

 

83.888 83
85888 as... 883 ..o 848:: 83088.. 83:82 8038538 88.... 8.337.398 808.89. «.833 “@802

 

AS56823 3.893 38..
:52. 823688 5 £83 89:
< 32» 3 .83 as. 2.23 355 3

 

a .AcoEmaoav $882 Quaabsuz
m m 823883 E 02. 3 8888

o as. 2.23 22.238 55 3:28 >

 

a H a x .3»8b:u= 8038.88
m m 8 38m 3 28388 38 cu

a BB mecca—.38 .2555 3.83 D

 

Age—8‘58:
82:68.8 5 >68 3 8888

o o o a so: 833 882:8 55 3.35 9

m2

 

A
< < .9553»: 52883 5
a . a 8 >68 3 283:3 so: 833 383 m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mon— 20 rd «3 ad 30 ad 36 $99.». v.n_ «dad Sound «xv :0 0.5 mg a
mZOmmMA ZO—B—mOn—Omm

 

 

 

 

2mm >m magma: mmzém AdZOHEHmOmomm
28:83.88 .h magma

 

383 33

538%.:— ofi 8:5 ..o hon—=5: €30.59. 33:52 £02353? 255 3553893 0:08.50.— 8384 £902

 

MA

.A 5 $85,532“. gm

 

m 9<§o

81m” 3*

5

m8!

«a:

.3335:
3 2»: c8: so: 833 355 N

 

.Acosmmoaoav
2:33 3.8.5:»: "cosmvcoov
E g: 3 253:8 3.35 >

 

mm

 

 

.395 3 05:35». 3 Eu: too:
so: 253 can 32» 3 Emmi
3 2»: c8: so: 823 55: x

 

mom

 

20

 

wwwa

 

EU

 

«.336 $0 m6 «2....

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm 3

m5

 

m6

 

«xv

 

 

:0

g ma<m

 

 

 

mZOmmm:

 

mg m
ZO—B—wOn—Omm

 

 

2mm wm QHEQEQ magma A<ZOHEHmOmO~E

83:55.8

.m Magma—4w

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

LISI‘OF REFERENCE

Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. W. East Lansing, Mich.:
Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1985.

Anderson, R. C. Control of student mediating processes during verbal

learning and instruction WW. 1970 4Q. 349-
369.

Andersson, B. Some aspects of children’ 3 understanding of boiling point.
In W. F. Archenhold, R. H. Driver, A. Orton, & C. Wood- Robinson (Eds.),
1m ° 1- 11111-1 1 1:11'1' 1111 111: '. Leeds,
United Kingdom. Centre for Studies in Science Education, University of
Leeds, 1980.

Ausubel, D. P. The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention

of meaningful verbal learning lonnmLQLEdncationaLEsxcholoa. 1960
51, 267-272.

Ausube1.D. P. W New York: Grune
& Straton, 1963.

Berkheimer. G. D. W
' ' . (Technical Report No. 80-7). East Lansing, Michigan:

Science and Mathematics Teaching Center, Michigan State University,
1978.

Berlyne. D E W New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1965.

Blank, M., & Franklin, E. Dialogue with preschoolers. A cognitively-based
system of assessment. WW 1980,1, 127- 150.

Bliss, J ., & Ogborn, J. The analysis of qualitative data. Enmn mm
mm. 1979.1. 427-440.

Bloom, B. Time and learning. WW, 1974, 29, 682-688.

Bloom, B. The new direction 1n educational research. Alterable variables.

Wu. 1980 81. 382-385.

241

242

Brown, A. Learning and development: The problems of compatibility, ac-

cess and induction. W, 1982, 25, 89-115.

Brumby, M. Problems in learning the concept of natural selection. 1mg;

noloLBiologJLEdnoation.1979.13. 119-122

Caldwell, J. A. The development and assessment of procedures to derive
representations of students’ propositional knowledge from multiple choice
test responses (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980).
DissonatiomAhstnaotLIntomational.

1981,41, 3973A. (University Micro-
films No. DDJ81-06359)

Calfee, R. Cognitive psychology and educational practice. In D. C. Berliner
(Ed..) BflioLoLBosoathLEdnootion (Vol.9). Washington D 0.:
American Educational Research Association, 1981.

Campbell, D. T. ‘Degrees of freedom’ and the case study. W
Wes, 1975, 8(2), 178- 193.

Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M., & Green, B. Naive beliefs in
‘sophisticated’ subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects.

Cognition. 1981. 9(2). 117-123.

Case, R. Gearing the demands of instruction to the deve10pmental capaci-

ties of the learner BMW 1975 15. 59- 87

Case, R. A developmentally based theory and technology of instruction.
BonooLofiEdnoationalBosoaroh. 1978. 48. 439-63

Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. Factors influencing

the learning of classical mechanics. WW5,1980,
48, 1074-1079.

Champagne, A. B. Klopfer, L. E., & Gunstone, R. F. Cognitive research

and the design of science instruction. WW, 1982 11,
31-53.

Cichon. D J. & Olson. G E W

: =.111=_1 1 1 1 :“1111 211 ° 1111111.Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Toronto, March 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 160 611)

Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. Teachers’ thinking. In P. L. Peterson, & H.

J. Walberg (Eds.), W. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan
Publishing, 1979.

Clement, J. Students’ preconceptions in introductory physics. American
JoomaloLthsios. 1982.511. 66-71.

Clement, J. & Byron, F. W., Jr. ' ’
' . Amherst, Mass; Cognitive Development Program,
University of Massachusetts, 197 8

Clement, J., Byron, F. W., Jr., 8: Lochhead, J. W115

£_ ‘0 3. 0.0,: 0! Q ’0' a. 0" 01

mm. Amherst Mass.: Cognitive Development Program,
University of Massachusetts, 1979.

Cole. M. Hood. L. 8;. McDermott. R Wow
: ' z - - - - New York:

Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, Rockefeller University,
1978.

Confrey, J.

 

Paper presented at the Fourth International
Conceference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Berkeley,
August 1980. (a)

Confrey, J. ' ° ° ° '
' . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Boston, April 1980. (b)

Confrey, J. Implications of the research on misconceptions for teaching.
In H. Helm, & J. D. Novak (Eds.,)
. Ithaca, New York:
Department of Education, Cornell University, 1983.

Cronbach, L. J. The two disciplines of scientific psychology. Am5zi55n
W1 19571 121 671-684-

Cronbach, L. J ., & Snow, R. E. ' °
New York: Irvington
Publishers, 1977.

Davis, R. B. The postulation of certain specific, explicit, commonly-shared
frames immaloflMothomotioaLBohanor. 1980. 3(1). 167- 201

di Sessa, A. A. Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-
based learning. W55, 1982, 6, 37- 75.

Doran, R. L. Misconceptions of selected science concepts held by elemen-

tary school students. lonmaLoflBosoaMinfioionoLEonoation. 1972. 9.
127-137.

Driver, R. The representation of conceptual frameworks in young adoles-
cent science students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champagne. 1973) DissontatioxLAhstnaotantomotionol. 1974.
BA, 7065A. (University Microfilms No. DDJ74-12006)

 

244

Driver, R. Pupils’ alternative frameworks 1n science.E111'_op5511_151m151_i11
SoionooEdnoation. 1981. 3.93101.

Driver, R., & Easley, J. Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature re-
lated to concept development 1n adolescent science students. M55411
W. 1978. 5. 61- 84

Driver, R. & Erickson, G. Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empir-
ical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science.

StodiosinfioionogEoooation. 1983.10. 3760

Duncan, I. M. & Johnstone, A. H. The mole concept. W
9115111151111, 1973, 19, 213-214.

Dunkel, H. B. Wanted: New paradigms and a. normative base for research.
In L. G. Thomas (Ed.,) .

Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, 1972.

Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. W. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1974.

Easley, J. A., Jr. Naturalistic case studies exploring social- -cognitive
mechanisms, and some methodological 1ssues in research on problems of

teachers MW 1982.19. 191- 203

Eaton, J. R, Anderson, C. W., 8: Smith, E. L. Student misconceptions in-
terfere with science learning: Case studies of fifth-grade students.

ElementamSohooLJonmal. 1984. 6.4. 365-379.

Eisner, E. W. On the differences between scientific and artistic approaches
to qualitative research.Ed1155115n51_B55551:5h5n,1981, 19(4), 5-9.

Erickson, F. Timing and context in everyday discourse: Implications for
the study of referential and social meaning. In P. Dickson (Ed.,)

ledtoxL’Lonaloommnnioatioanills New York: Academic Press 1981

Erickson, F. Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships be-
tween academic task structure and social participation structure in
lessons. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.,)

New York: Academic Press, 1982. (a)

Erickson, F. Money tree, lasagna bush, salt and pepper: Social construc-
tion of topical cohesion in a conversation among Italian-Americans. In
Tannen. D. (Ed.,) WM. Washington.D
0.: Georgetown University Press, 1982. (b)

Erickson, F. Taught cognitive learning 1n its immediate environments: A

neglected topic in the anthropology of education. W
Warmly. 1982.13. 149-180. (c)

245

Erickson, F. Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C.

Wittrock (Ed.). Hondbookoflfiosoamhonleaohing (3rd ed.). New York:
Macmillan, 1986.

Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. Cultural organization of participation struc-
tures in two classrooms of indian students. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing

W; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1982.

Erickson, F., 8: Shultz, J. When is a context? Some 1ssues and methods 1n
the analysis of social competence. In J. L. Green & C. Wallat (Ed..)
WW

Norwood, New
Jersey: Ablex Publishing, 1981.

Erlwanger, S. H. Case studies of children’s conceptions of mathematics
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 1974).

,,1975 35, 7121A. (University Micro-
films No. DDJ75-11653)

Fenstermacher. G. D. Cnflmmtomuseuflnomafimhm. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, March 1982.

Fisher. K M-. & Lipson. J I StudeanisoonoontionanJntrooootou
hi515gx. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, New York, March 1982.

Floden, R. E. The logic of information-processing pscyhology 1n education.
In D. C. Berliner (Ed..) WW (Vol. 9).
Washington, D. (3.: American Educational Research Association, 1981.

Foss, D. J ., & Hakes, D. T. W. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1978.

Fredette, N. H., & Clement, J. J. Student misconceptions of an electric

circuit: What do they mean? JonmaloflCollogLSoionoLToaohing 1981.
19, 280-285.

Fuson. K C. (Ed..) ExolorationLinJhLmooohngoLtbLloamiM
m1h5m5ti55. Columbus, Ohio. ERIC Information Analysis Center for
Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, 1979. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 173 113)

Gagne, R. M. Ih555nd1t1511541fl5a13mng. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1977.

Gehrke. N. J .. & Parker. W. C. ConomfingJMEicnlothoothmugh
W. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York, March 1982.

 

246

Geertz, C. Thick description. Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In

C. Geertz (Ed.), WW5. New York. Basic Books,
1973.

Geertz, C. Local knowledge: Fact and law in comparative perspective. In
C. Geertz (Ed.), W. New York: Basic Books, 1983.

Gilbert, J. K. & Osborne, R. J. Identifying science students’ concepts: The
interview-about-instances approach. In W. F. Archenhold, R. H. Driver,
A. Orton, & C. Wood- Robinson (Eds.,) CognitiyLdoxdonmenLnesoMin
W55. Leeds, United Kingdom: Centre for Studies in
Science Education, University of Leeds, 1980.

Gowin, D. B. Misconceptions, metaphors and conceptual change: Once
more with feeling. In H. Helm, & J. D. Novak (Eds.,) WM

0 .130... '111:1111:11'1':11 Q‘U'I' I. H Q'Hv.

Ithaca, NY. Department of Education, Cornell University, 1983.

Gray. R. L.. & Lochhead. J. W
Amherst, Mass.: Cognitive Development Project, University of
Massachusetts, 1979.

Greeno, J. G. Cognitive objectives of instruction: Theory of knowledge rep-
resentation for problem solving and answering questions. In D. Klahr
(Ed.,) W511. Hillside, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1976.

Gumperz, J. J ., & Herasimchuk, E. The conversational analysis of social

meaning: A study of classroom interaction. In R. W. Shuy (Ed.),

' ' ' ' ' Washington, D. 0.:
Georgetown University Press, 197 2.

Gunstone. R F. & Northfield. J R WW5:
WW. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, April 1986.

Gunstone, R., & White, R. Understanding of gravity. W,
1981, 55, 291-300.

Hanna, J. F. An interpretive survey of recent research on scientific
explanation. In P. D. Asquith, & H. E. Kyburg, Jr. (Eds). Shim
rosoamhjmom'losoohloflmnoe. East Lansing. Mich: Philosophy of
Science Association, 197 9.

Hanna. J F W Un-
published manuscript, Department of Philosophy, Michigan State
University, 1980.

 

247

Harris, I. B. ' ° ’ ' 1
' . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York, March 1982.

Helm, H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.). ° '
' ' ° ' Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University, 1983.

Hewson. M G W53

1 1 ‘ 0 I. Q‘ ‘ 0 0 H 9
° ' Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
Lake Geneva, April 1982.

Hewson, P. W. A conceptual change approach to learning science.

Emmanionmalionficionoflionoation. 1981. 3. 383 396

Hewson, P. W. A case study of conceptual change 1n special relativity: The

influence of prior knowledge in learning.E111'5p555_J_QJ11j1151_5L§5151155
Edmafign,1982,fi, 61- 78.

Hewson. P W. & Hewson. M G.Effootof_1nstmonon_115m5_5tndonts_onor
.1

,11'1'11°‘: 1 1 ‘:1i°1

W55. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva,
Wisconsin, April 1982.

Hollon, R., Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. An411551:115_t15551_5x555m_£51:

'0 ‘ll ' 0' Q! 1 ' 0912‘3100 -H' 0'

1115111151 (Research Series No.90). East Lansing, Mich.: Institute for
Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1981.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B.

' ' ' ' . Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New York, March 1982.

Inhelder, B., Sinclair, H., & Bovet, M.. '
55511111511. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974.

Jarvie, I. C. 955555555553515'511. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972.

Johnstone, A. H. Learning difficulties 1n school science: Towards a work-
inghypothesis Wm,1980,2,175-181

Johnstone, A. H., MacDonald, J. J., & Webb, G. A thermodynamic ap-
proach to chemical equilibrium. W, 197 7 12, 248- 251.

248

Johnson, H. 0., Jr., Rhodes, D., & Rumery, R. E. The assessment of teach-
ing in higher education: A critical retrospect and a proposal. Part II: A

proposal. HigheLEoooation.1975.4.273-303.

Kant, 1. W555] (N. K. Smith, Ed. and trans). New York:
St. Martin’s, 1965. (Originally published, 1787.)

KatZ. J. J. EronositionaLstmotomndilloontionaanoroo Sussex. United
Kingdom: Harvester Press, 1977.

Klausmeier, H. J ., & Associates. '
' - ' ' ' . Cambridge, Mass:
Ballinger Publishing Company, 1979.

Knott, R., Lawson, C., Karplus, R, Thier, H. D. & Montgomery, M.
(25515151115155. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1978.

Kuethe, L. J. Science concepts: A study of ‘sophisticated’ errors. $515555
Education, 1963, 41, 361-364.

Kuhn, D., & Angelev, J. An experimental study of the development of for-
mal operational thought. WW. 1976, 41, 697-706.

Kuhn, D., & Brannock, J. Development of the isolation of variables scheme
in experimental and “natural experiment” contexts. 11515155111551,

Emhologx. 1977.13. 9-14.

Kuhn. T. IthtmotanoLsoiontifiLmLolntions (2nd ed.). ChicagO:
University of Chicago Press, 197 0.

Landes, N., Smith, E. L., & Anderson, C. W. W
ustom (Research Series N o. 89). East Lansing, Mich.: Institute for Re-
search on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1981.

Larkin. J W Paper presented
at Mental Models Conference, University of California, San Diego, October
1980.

Larkin. J . Cognition of learning physics. AmorioanJoomaLoLEhxsios.
1981.49. 534-41.

Larkin, J ., McDermott, J ., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. Expert and novice
performance in solving physics problems. 8515555, 1980, 295, 1335- 1342.
(a)

Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P, 8: Simon, H. A. Models of compe-
tence in solving physics problems. C555m15§515555,1980,4, 317- 345. (b)

 

249

Laszlo. E. Why. New York: Harper and
Row, 1972.

Leboutet-Barrell, L. Concepts of mechanics in young people. Physics
W11. 1976. 11. 462-466.

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. Problems of reliability and validity in
ethnographic research W.1982.52. 31- 60.

Leith. S. G. Qhfldmsflmmmnmmmnm Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, April 1982.

Lochhead, J. .
Amherst, Mass.: Cognitive Development Project, University of
Massachusetts, 1980.

Lott. G. W. We
' ° . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the National Science Teachers Association, Atlanta, April 197 9. (a)

Lott. G. W W Unpublished
manuscript, Science and Mathematics Teaching Center, Michigan State
University, 197 9 (b)

Lott, G. W. ’ - , ' ' ' '
education. Unpublished manuscript, Science and Mathematics Teaching
Center, Michigan State University, 1979. (c)

IJOttG’WH“COO 01‘01:_1:1° 011:1:1: o:::o
(Conceptual Change Project, Working Paper No. 1). East Lansing, Mich.:

Science and Mathematics Teaching Center, Michigan State University,
1980. (a)

Lott, G. W.

 

 

and_science_education. Unpublished manuscript, Science .and
Mathematics Teaching Center, Michigan State University, 1980. (b)

Lott, G. W.

 

(Conceptual Change Project,
Discussion Paper No. 2). East Lansing, Mich: Institute for Research on
Teaching, Michigan State University, 1981. (a)

L0tt,G.W. Ursno':‘o o ‘=.oou= 1“ 001::11 o
' (Conceptual Change Project, Working
Paper No. 5). East Lansing, Mich.: Institute for Research on Teaching,
Michigan State University, 1981. (b)

250

Lott,..GW “ “ 1 :.1= . 1 21 11- 11 11 ’1
change (Conceptual Change Project, Discussion Paper No.1). East
Lansing, Mich.: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State
University, 1982.

L0tt,G.W. ; 1 1 11'1 = ' 1"1‘ 11"..11° 1
(Conceptual Change Project, Technical Report No.1).
East Lansing, Mich.: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State
University, 1983. (a)

Lott. G W. W15 (Conceptual
Change Project, Technical Report No. 2). East Lansing, Mich.: Institute
for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1983. (b)

Lott, G. W. : ' ° ' ° 1.1
mm (Conceptual Change Project, Technical Report No.3)
East Lansing, Mich.: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State
University, 1983. (c)

 

Lovell, K. Some aspects of the growth of the concept of a function. In M. F.
Rossk0pf, (Ed).Eiagefimungniti1e__dexelnpment_Leseamh_and_mathea
. Washington, D. 0.: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics, 1971.

Lucas, P. A., & McConkie, G. W. The definition of test items: A descriptive
approach. AmericanjducationaLBeseanmeranl. 1980.11. 133- 140

Lybeck, L. Some theoretical considerations and experiences related to re-
search and developments 1n the teaching of mathematics and science. In
W. F. Archenhold, R. H. Driver, A. Orton, & C. Wood- Robinson (Eds. ),

1'1 '1"11111 ' 1 1:11'1' 11 11=111=°. Leeds,
United Kingdom: Centre for Studies 1n Science Education, University of
Leeds, 1980.

Lybeck, L, Marton, F, Stromdahl, H., & Tullberg, A. Ihuhenomenogxa;

’9
'0 0 0' “HO‘ 00 '0 ° ,0‘11.H"° Q02 1 0 ‘.!"1‘

90’!» I'O' 1.00010.‘ ' 0‘ 3.3.! H"! ' ‘H‘I‘il' ”0‘
education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educa-
tional Research Association, San Francisco, April 1986.

Maskill, R., & Pereira, D. Cognitive structure from digraph analysis of
language. In W. F. Archenhold, R. H. Driver, A. Orton, & C. Wood-
Robinson (Eds. ). WWW
mathematics. Leeds, United Kingdom: Centre for Studies in Science
Education, University of Leeds, 1980.

McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., 8: Green, B. Curvilinear motion in the ab-
sence of external forces: Naive beliefs about the motion of objects.

Science, 1980, 210,, 1139-1141.

251

Magoon, A. J. Constructivist approaches in educational research. Refiew
W, 1977. 41. 651- 693.

Minsky. M. Semanticjnfozmationmssing. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT
Press, 1969.

Minsky, M. A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston
(Ed..) W New York: McGraw-Hill.1975.

Minsky, M. Frame-system theory. In P. N. J ohnson-La1rd & P. C. Wason

(Eds.). WW. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1977.

Minstrell, J. Teaching for the development of understanding of ideas:
Forces on moving objects. In Anderson, C. W. (Ed..) W
5‘; 00.; .0; "ll' ‘ 'Q ‘ 0";0' " .OQQ ‘1'. ’¢.. .._
Nashville, Tenn.: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science,
1984. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 255 355)

Neisser,U. 12111 =11 ‘: ' '11,111' =11 m111=_11:1 1:11
osxmology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.,1976.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. W. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Norman, H. F., & Clement, J. J. Students’ misconceptions of an electric

circuit: What do they mean? WM. 1981.
19, 280- 285.

Nussbaum, J. Children’s conceptions of the earth as a cosmic body: A

cross age study. ScienceEducation, 197 9, 63, 83-93.

Nussbaum, J. Towards the diagnosis by science teachers of pupils’
misconceptions: An exercise with student teachers. In W. F.
Archenhold, R. H. Driver, A. Orton, & C. Wood-Robinson (Eds.), Qogniti_e

. Leeds, United
Kingdom: Centre for Studies in Science Education, University of Leeds,
1980.

Nussbaum, J. Conceptual change in school science: A revolutionary or
evolutionary process? InH. Helm, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Emceedingsofthe

 

 

Ithaca, New York: Department of Education, Cornell UniverSity, #1983. 7

Nussbaum, J ., & Novak, J. D. An assessment of children’s conceptions of
the earth using structured interviews. Science_E_ducation, 197 6, 6Q, 535-
550.

 

252

Nussbaum. J.. & Novick. S W

1‘1‘1‘11'1 11 10 1 °‘ 1111,:1241: 111111. 1_1

WW. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Los Angeles 1981. (ERIC Document Reproducation Service
No. ED 204 267)

Nussbaum, J. & Novick, S. Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict
and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instcuc;
finnalficienra. 1982.11. 183-200. (a)

Nussbaum. J.. & Novick.S.A_51.udy_Q£5511ceptual_5hange_1n_the_da55mm.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research 1n Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, April 1982. (b)

Nussbaum, J ., & Sharoni-Dagan, N. Changes in second grade children’s
preconceptions about the earth as a cosmic body resulting from a short
series of audio-tutorial lessons. Edenceeducation, 1983, 61, 99-114.

Nuthall, G. A., & Lawrence, P. J. Ihmkmgontheclasszoom. Wellington:
New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1965.

Ogborn, J. Some uses of networks of options for describing complicated
qualitative data. In W. F. Archenhold, R. H. Driver, A. Orton, 81. C. Wood-
Robinson (Eds. ),

Leeds, United Kingdom: Centre for Studies in Science Education,
University of Leeds, 1980.

Osborne, R. & Wittrock, M. Learning science: A generative process.

SsienceEdncatinn. 1983. 51. 489-508.

Petrie, H. G. Theories are tested by observing the facts: Or are they? In L.
G. Thomas (Ed. ), .
Chicago. National Society for the Study of Education, 1972.

Piaget. J. Ithhildmnceptianthxsicalmsalm. Totowa. New
Jersey: Littlefield, Adams and Co.,1960.

Piaget, J. BiologLamLknowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1971.

Pines, A. L., Novak, J. D., Posner, G. J, & VanKirk, J. Ihe_c1inical
WWW (Research Report
No. 6). Ithaca, New York: Department of Education, Cornell University,
1978.

Posner, G. J. Tools for curriculum research and development. Cur;

rimlumlnmiiu. 1978, 8. 311- 340.

Ann—mu —.—. ...—

 

11”

$3

Posner, G. J. New developments in curriculum research: It’s the thought

that counts. WM 1981, 19, 25-55.

Posner, G. J. A model of conceptual change: Present status and prospect.
In H. Helm, & J. D. Novak (Eds. ).

 

. Ithaca, NY: Depart-
ment of Education, Cornell University, 1983.

Posner. G. J .. & Gertzog. W. W
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1979.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W, & Gertzog, W. A. Leaning

1 1 1 1 : 1 _ 1 1‘11‘: ‘ 1 1 1
students. Paper presented at the International Conference Celebrating
the 100th Anniversary of the Birth of Albert Einstein, Hofstra University,
November 1979.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., and Gertzog, W. A.
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual

change ScienceEducation. 1982. 66. 211- 227.

Preece, P. F. W. The concepts of electromagnetism: A study of the internal
representation of external structure. WW

Teaching, 1976,13, 517-525. (a)

Preece, P. F. W. A note on the comparison of cognitive structure and

subject-matter structure WW. 1976.
13, 353-54. (b)

Preece, P. F. W. Associative structure and the schemea of proportionality.

qumalnflfieseamhinficiencemghing. 1978. 15. 395- 399 (a)

Preece, P. F. W. Exploration of semantic space: Review of research on the
organization of scientific concepts in semantic memory. Science

Education. 1978. 52. 547-562. (b)

Reid, W. A. ThmkingAboutJheJumculum. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1978.

Reid. W. A. WWW—Amanm Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, March 1982.

Roberts, D. A. The place of qualitative research in science education.

Joumalnflfimarchsnfiuencejl‘eacmng. 1982. 19. 277- 92.

Ross. D D.. 8: Kyle. D. W W
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Re-
search Association, New York, March 1982.

R0th,K.J. '0'. o. O'l"3d00'10:,0'0 00“9'. ”0‘
texts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 1985.

Roth, K. J, Smith, E. L., &Anderson, C. W. W
Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April 1984.

Rowe, M. B. Science, silence, and sanctions. W. 1969,
1(3), 11-13.

Rowell, J. A., & Dawson, C. J. Teaching about floating and sinking: An
attempt to link cognitive psychology with classroom practice. Science
Education. 1977. 61. 243-251.

Rubba, P. A., Horner, J. K., & Smith, J. M. A study of two misconceptions
about the nature of science among junior high school students. Schgcl

ScienmndMathematics. 1981. 8.1. 221- 26.

Russell, T. L. ' '

111W? Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, April 1982.

Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. '
scciclcgy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,1973.

Searle, J. R. W. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1979.

Sendelbach, N. B. A case study of activity-based instruction in a science
classroom. An eclectic analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State

Universit)’. 1980) W31. 1981. :12. 1087A
(University Microfilms No. DDJ81- 12152)

Shavelson, R. J. Some aspects of the correspondence between content
structure and cognitive structure in physics instruction. W

W 1972 53. 225-34.

Shepard, R. N. Multidimensional scaling, tree-fitting, and clustering.
Science. 1980. 219. 390-98.

Shulman, L. S. Paradigms and research programs in the study of
teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Wing (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1986.

 

255

Shulman, L. S., & Elstein, A. S. Studies of problem solving, judgement and
decision making: Implications for educational research. In F. N.

Kerlinger (Ed..) WW. Itasca. I11: F. E.
Peacock Publishers, 197 5

Siegler, R. S., & Klahr, D. When do children learn? The relationship
between existing knowledge and the acquisition of new knowledge. In R.
Glaser (Ed..) WW (Vol.2). Hillsdale.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982.

Simon, H. A. How big is a chunk? Science, 1974, 183, 482-88.

Simon, H. A. Scienceufchunificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press, 1980.

Slobin, D. I. Eslchclinguistics. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman and
Company, 1979.

Smith, E. L.

 

WWW. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the National Association for Research' 1n Science Teaching, 1980. (a)

Smith. E. L. W

- i i (All-University Research

Initiation Project, Final Report). East Lansing, Mich.: Science and
Mathematics Teaching Center, Michigan State University, 1980. (b)

SmithwEL 'um: 11: 11‘1 0 1:1‘: no 1‘ 111111-
ties_U_nit (Planning and Teaching Intermediate Science Study, Working
Paper No. 5). East Lansing, Mich.: Institute for Research on Teaching,
Michigan State University, 1981.

Smith, E. L. '
(Planning and Teaching Intermediate Science Study, Working Paper No.
17). East Lansing, Mich.: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan
State University, 1982.

Smith. E. L.. & Anderson. C. W. W

‘ :1 = ‘ :1 .o:‘ 11" ‘ Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada, April 1983.

Smith. E L.. & Anderson. C W.Ihe_.1113nmng_and_teachmg_intermediate
sciexice_stud1;_£inal_nencr_t (Research Series No.147). East Lansing,
Mich.: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University,
1984. (a)

 

' 256

Smith, E. L. & Anderson, C. W. Plants as producers: A case study of ele-
mentary science teaching WW.
1984, 2.1. 685-98. (b)

Smith. E. L.. & Berkheimer. G. D.. W.
East Lansing, Mich.: Science and Mathematics Teaching Center, Michi-

gan State University, 1977.

Smith, E. L., & Lott, G. W.
W (Conceptual Change
Project, Working Paper No. 8). East Lansing, Mich.: Institute for Re-
search on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1982.

Snow, C. E. 81. Goldfield, B. A. Building stories: The emergence of infor-
mation structures from conversation. In D. Tannen (Ed. ). Analxzing
. Washington, D. 0.: Georgetown University

Press, 1982.

Stake, R. E. The case study method in social inquiry. Educaticnal
Researcher. 1978. 1. 58

Stewart, J. Content and cognitive structure: Critique of assessment and
representation techniques used by science education researchers. Science
1391112311123. 1979, E}. 395-405.

Stewart, J. Appropriate research in biology education. AW
Teacher. 1980. $2. 484. (a)

Stewart, J. Techiques for assessing and representing information in

cognitive structure. ScienceEducaticn, 1980, m, 223-235. (b)

Strike, K. A. Misconceptions and conceptual change. In H. Helm, & J. D.
Novak(Eds.,)' “11‘ 1 1‘1‘11 111111 1111 11‘1 11
iLsciencLandnathemm. Ithaca, New York: Department of
Education, Cornell University, 1983.

 

Sutton, C. R. The learner’s prior knowledge: A critical review of tech-
niques for probing its organization. '

Educaticn, 1980, 2, 107-120.

Tamir, P. Classroom interaction analysis of high school biology classes in

Israel ScienceEdeeatien. 1981. 6.5. 87- 103

Terry, C., Jones, G, & Hurford, W. Children’s conceptual understanding
of forces and equilibrium. PhysicsEducaticn, 1985, 29,, 162- 165.

Thomas, L. G. (Ed. ). ° ° '
Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, 1972.

257

Toulmin, S. Humannndesstanding. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1972.

Trowbridge, D. E, & McDermott, L. C. Investigation of student under-
standing of the concept of velocity 1n one dimension. AmencaniqunaLof
Ehysim, 1980, 18, 1021- 1027.

Turner. A.. & Greene. E. Censtmetiemendmseefluzmpemtienauexthese.
Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado, 1978. (DJAS Document No.
MS 1713)

Viennot, L. Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. Euccpcan
JenmalefiSeienceEdueetien. 1979.1. 205 221.

Weinstein, C. S. The physical environment of the school: A review of the
research BefiexeflEdneanenaLBeseamh. 1979. 49. 577- 610

West, L. H. T. Towards descriptions of the cognitive structures of science
students. In W. F. Archenhold, R. H. Driver, A. Orton, & C. Wood-
Robinson (Eds.), CognitixejexelenmenLJesearehJLscieneLand
mathematics. Leeds, United Kingdom: Centre for Studies in Science
Education, University of Leeds, 1980.

White, RHT U‘ 11°41 ‘ 1‘ ‘ 1111‘1 1 1‘ ‘ 11 ‘ 1‘1 ' {-1-
naleanireahtxnaseheelzbasedeetierueseamh. Paper Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, April 1986.

Wierstra, R. F. A. Psychological theories and research methods relating to
pupils’ mental structures as aids in designing a curriculum. In W. F.
Archenhold, R. H. Driver, A. Orton, & C. Wood-Robinson (Eds.,) chntixe

. Leeds, United
Kingdom: Centre for Studies in Science Education, University of Leeds,
1980.

Wollman, W. Controlling variables: Assessing levels of understanding.

SeieneeEdneatien. 1977. £11. 371- 383

Yinger, R. J. ' ‘ ' ' -
' ' ' (Research Series No. 18). East Lansing, Mich.:
Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1978.

Za’rour, G. I. Science misconceptions among certain groups of students 1n

Lebanon MaLeLBeseanchinSdeneeleaming. 1975.12. 385-392

 

258

This dissertation was designed and produced using a Mac II and Mac SE
with Microsoft Word, McDraw, C-Scan and Pagemaker.

The typeface used was New Century Schoolbook with the exception of the
Producers Test which was set in Helvetica.

This dissertation was prepared in accordance with the instructions given
in the Rublicaticn_Manual of the American Psychological Association
(@1977) as well as those requirements stipulated in W991

1 ' 1 1.111 U: ‘ :_11 .1 1 ._ I 11‘

(@1986) published by The Graduate School, Michigan State University

Mac II and Mac SE are registered trademarks of Apple Computer. Microsoft Word is a
registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Macme is a registered trademark of Claris
Corporation. C-Scan is a registered trademark of Abaton Technology Corporation. Pagemaker
is a registered trademark of Aldus Corporation. Helvetica is a registered trademark of Linotype
AG.