An Overview of Conceptual Change
Theories
More details
Hide details
1
Niğde Üniversitesi, Niğde, TURKEY
2
Arizona State University, AZ, USA
Publication date: 2007-12-23
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2007;3(4):351-361
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Conceptual change researchers have made significant progress on two prominent but
competing theoretical perspectives regarding knowledge structure coherence. These
perspectives can be broadly characterized as (1) knowledge-as-theory perspectives and (2)
knowledge-as-elements perspectives. These perspectives can be briefly summarized in
terms of the following questions. Is a student’s knowledge most accurately represented as
a coherent unified framework of theory-like character (e.g., Carey, 1999; Chi, 2005;
Ioannides & Vosniadou, 2002; Wellman & Gelman, 1992)? Or is a student’s knowledge
more aptly considered as an ecology of quasi-independent elements (e.g., Clark, 2006;
diSessa, Gillespie, & Esterly, 2004; Harrison, Grayson, & Treagust, 1999; Linn, Eylon, &
Davis, 2004)? In this review, we clarify these two theoretical perspectives and discuss the
educational implications of each. This debate is important because these perspectives
implicate radically different pathways for curricular design to help students reorganize
their understandings. Historically, the research literature has predominantly supported
knowledge-as-theory perspectives. After outlining both perspectives, this paper discusses
arguments and educational implications that potentially favor the adoption of knowledgeas-
elements perspectives