CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Science Education and PedagogyEducational Methods and OutcomesEvolution and Science Education

Using a Discrepant Event to Facilitate Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Force and Motion

Open access
Anggoro, Subuh, Widodo, Ari, Suhandi, Andi, Treagust, David F.·2019·EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
DOI 10.29333/ejmste/105275
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Both students and teachers have misconceptions about Force and Motion, often caused by teachers not being well-prepared to teach the accepted scientific theory. Besides, teachers rarely or never use a cognitive conflict strategy in their teaching. The present study is aimed at investigating the use of a discrepant event to facilitate preservice elementary teachers’ conceptual change on Force and Motion concepts. The main objectives were to (1) investigate conceptual changes in Force and Motion concepts and (2) track students’ conceptual change and their learning progression of these concepts. The research method used an intervention with a mixed method design. Second-semester students (N=120) participated in this study. The research instrument consisted of background information of respondents and their belief of conceptions about Force and Motion. The preliminary study using Direct Instruction and discussion methods. Once students’ conceptual change profiles were known, remedial teaching was conducted through Reflective Conceptual Change Model-assisted Visual Multimedia. The research findings have shown that a discrepant event could help participants engage in conceptual change and have better explanations than before. The profile of their conceptual change and pattern of learning progression are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.29333/ejmste/105275

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 137

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the Sources for our Understandings about Science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013 · DOI
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098- 237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057-1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098- 2736(200012)37:10<1057::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-C Ab Rahim, R., N. Noor, Md. N., Zaid, M. (2015). Meta-analysis on Element of Cognitive Conflict Strategies with a Focus on Multimedia Learning Material Development. International Education Studies, 8(13), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies. · DOI
  3. v8n13p73 · DOI
  4. Allen, M. (2010). Misconception in Primary Science. Open University Press. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
  5. Akerson, V., & Hanuscin, D. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development programme. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653-680. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tea.20159 · DOI
  6. Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers' understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72, 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720107/pdf · DOI
  7. Akpınar, Y., Ardaç, D. & Er-Amuce, N. (2014). Development and validation of an argumentation based multimedia science learning environment: Preliminary findings. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3848-3853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.853 · DOI
  8. Alonzo, A., & Steedle, J. T. (2008). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93, 389-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20303 · DOI
  9. Anggoro, S., Widodo, A., & Suhandi, A. (2017). Pre-service Elementary Teachers Understanding on Force and Motion. Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, 895, 012151. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012151 · DOI
  10. Amin, T. G. (2009). Conceptual Metaphor Meets Conceptual Change. Human Development, 52, 165-197. https://doi.org/10.1159/000213891 · DOI
  11. Arts, R. W. (2005). A comparison of in-service elementary teachers' conceptions of Selected standards-based force and motion concepts before and after instruction (Dissertation Capella University).
  12. Aydeniz, M., & Brown, C. L. (2010). Enhancing pre-service elementary school teachers' understanding of essential science concepts through a reflective conceptual change model. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(2), 305-326. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1052019.pdf
  13. Baddock, M., & Bucat, R. (2008). Effectiveness of a Classroom Chemistry Demonstration using the Cognitive Conflict Strategy. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1115-1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701528824 · DOI
  14. Bani-Salameh, H. N., 2017. How persistent are the misconceptions about force and motion held by college students? Phys. Educ., 52, 014003, 7 pp. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/52/1/014003/ · DOI
  15. Baser, M. (2006). Fostering conceptual change by cognitive conflict based Instruction on students' understanding of heat and Temperature concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 96- 114. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75458 · DOI
  16. Beck-Winchatz, B., & Parra, R. D. (2013) Finding Out What They Really Think: Assessing Non Science Majors' Views of the Nature of Science. College Teaching, 61(4), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2013.809686 · DOI
  17. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G., (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology-based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063/pdf · DOI
  18. Borghi, L., De Ambrosis, A., Lamberti, N., & Mascheretti, P. (2005). A teaching-learning sequence on free fall motion. Physics Education, 40(3), 266-273. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/40/3/008 · DOI
  19. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Framework of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  20. Bulunuz, N., & Jarret, O. S. (2010). The effects of hands-on learning stations on building American elementary teachers' understanding about earth and space science concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75230 · DOI
  21. Cepni, S., & Sahin, C. (2012). Effect of different teaching methods and techniques embedded in the 5E instructional model on students' learning about buoyancy force. Eurasian Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education, 4(2), 97-127. Retrieved from http://www.ijpce.org/Effect-of-Different-Teaching-Methods-and-Techniques- Embedded-in-the-5E-Instructional,78551,0,2.html
  22. Champagne, A., Gunstone, R., & Klopfer, L. (1983). Naive knowledge and science learning. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(2), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514830010205 · DOI
  23. Chia, C. T. (1996). Common Misconceptions in Frictional Force among University Physics Students. Teaching and Learning, 16(2), 107-116. Retrieved from https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/434/1/TL-16-2- 107.pdf
  24. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993) The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(l), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Chinn C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001) Models of Data: A Theory of How People Evaluate Data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323-393. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_3 · DOI
  26. Choi, H. J., & Johnson, S.D. (2005). The Effect of Context-Based Video Instruction on Learning and Motivation in Online Courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1904_3 · DOI
  27. Creswell, J., & Plano, C. V. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  28. Cole, M., & Wertsch, J.V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250-256. https://doi.org/10.1159/000278475 · DOI
  29. Dahlan, J. A., & Rohayati, A. (2012). Implementasi strategi pembelajaran konflik kognitif dalam upaya meningkatkan High Order Mathematical Thinking Siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(2), 65-76.
  30. de Souza, L., Richter, B., & Nel, C. (2017). The effect of multimedia use on the teaching and learning of Social Sciences at tertiary level: A case study. Yesterday & Today, 17, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17159/2223- 0386/2017/n17a1 · DOI
  31. diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2 · DOI
  32. Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008) Turkish Grade 10 Students' and Science Teachers' Conceptions of Nature of Science: A National Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083-1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20243 · DOI
  33. Driver, R. (1989). Changing conceptions. In P. Adey, Ed., Adolescent development and school practice (pp. 79-103). London: Falmer Press.
  34. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770403 · DOI
  35. Druyan, S. (2001). A comparison of four types of cognitive conflict and their effect on cognitive development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(3), 226-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000276 · DOI
  36. Duckworth, E. (2001). Inventing Density. In Duckworth, E., "Tell Me More": Listening to Learners Explain (pp.1-41). New York: Teachers College.
  37. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin, Eds., International handbook of science education (pp. 3-26). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  38. Duit, R., Widodo, A., & Wodzinski, C. (2007). Conceptual change idea: teachers' views and their instructional practice. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Re-framing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 197-217). Amsterdam: Elsevier, in association with the European Association of Learning and Instruction. Retrieved from https://epdf.tips/reframing-the-conceptual-change-approach-in- learning-and-instruction-advances-in.html
  39. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2012). Conceptual Change: Still a powerful framework for improving the practice of science education. In K. Tan & M. Kim. (Eds.) Issues and challenges in science education research moving forward. Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3980-2_4 · DOI
  40. Drenth, P. J. D. (2006). Responsible conduct in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022265 · DOI
  41. Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students' understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 655-674. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20312 · DOI
  42. Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of Conceptual Assignments and Conceptual Change Discussions on Students' Misconceptions and Achievement Regarding Force and Motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10054 · DOI
  43. Galili, I. (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: Historical and educational perspectives, International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1073-1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110038585 · DOI
  44. Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R. W., Markman, A. B., Levidow, B. B., Wolff, P., & Forbus, K. D. (1997). Analogical Reasoning and Conceptual Change: A Case Study of Johannes Kepler. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 3-40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0601_2 · DOI
  45. Gilbert, J. K., Watts, D. M., & Osborne, R. J. (1982). Students' conceptions of ideas in mechanics. Physics Education, 17, 62-66. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/17/2/309 · DOI
  46. Goldman, R. (2004). Video perspectivity meets wild and crazy teens: A design ethnography. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(2), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640410001700543 · DOI
  47. Gonen, S. (2008). A study on student teachers' misconceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about mass and gravity. Journal of Science Education Technology, 17, 70-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9083-1 · DOI
  48. Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16(2), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/105735600277971 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Hadjiachilleos, S., Valanides, N. & Angeli, C. (2013) The impact of cognitive and affective aspects of cognitive conflict on learners' conceptual change about floating and sinking, Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(2), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.811074 · DOI
  50. Halim, A., Meerah, T., & Halim, L. (2009). Development and Application of Diagnostic Test to Identify Students' Misconception on Quantum Physics. Sains Malaysiana, 38, 543-551. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287416480_Development_and_Application_of_Diagnostic_Te st_to_Identify_Students'_Misconceptions_of_Quantum_Physics
  51. Halim, L., Yong, T. K., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2014). Overcoming Students' Misconceptions on Forces in Equilibrium: An Action Research Study. Creative Education, 5, 1032-1042. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.511117 · DOI
  52. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056- 1065. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14031 · DOI
  53. Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, K. & Stern, E. (2006). Effect of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students' understanding of floating and sinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.307 · DOI
  54. Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education, 15, 92-105. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/15/2/308 · DOI
  55. Herman, B. C., & Clough, M. P. (2016). Teachers' longitudinal NOS understanding after having completed a science teacher education program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9594-1 · DOI
  56. Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers' nature of science implementation practices 2-5 years after having completed an intensive science education programme. Science Education, 97(2), 271-309. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21048 · DOI
  57. Hermita, N., Suhandi, A., Syaodih, E., Samsudin, A., Mahbubah, K., Noviana, E., & Kurniaman, O. (2018). Constructing VMMSCCText for Re-conceptualizing Students' Conception. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci, 8(3), 102-110. Retrieved from https://www.textroad.com/pdf/JAEBS/Booklet,%20Vol.%208,%20No.1,%20 March,%202018.pdf
  58. Hubber, P. (2010). Year 8 students' understanding of astronomy as a representational issue: Insights from a classroom video study. In D. Raine, L. Rogers, & C Hurkett (Eds.), Physics community and cooperation: Selected contributions from the GIREP-EPEC & PHEC, 2009 International Conference (pp. 45-64). Leicester: Lulu, the Centre for Interdisciplinary Science, University of Leicester.
  59. Iii, J. A. Hand, C. B., & Prain, V. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 785-802. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110098 · DOI
  60. Jarosievitz, B. (2011). ICT, Multimedia used in the national and international educational projects. Informatika, 38, 22. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29484.67204 · DOI
  61. Jin, H., Zhan, L., & Anderson, C. W (2013). Developing a Fine-Grained Learning Progression Framework for Carbon-Transforming Processes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1663-1697. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.782453 · DOI
  62. Kabaca, T., Karadag, Z., & Aktumen, M. (2011). Misconception, cognitive conflict and conceptual changes in geometry: A case study with pre-service teachers. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 1(2), 44-55. Retrieved from http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423908923.pdf
  63. Kaltakci, D., & Didis, N. (2007). Identification of pre-service physics teachers' misconceptions on gravity concept: a study with a 3-tier misconception test. AIP Conference Proceedings 899, 499 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2733255 · DOI
  64. Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryılmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students' misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 989-1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015. · DOI
  65. 1369a · DOI
  66. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 71-96. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000021001.77568. · DOI
  67. Kang, S., Scharman, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining Students' Views on the NOS: Result from Korean 6th, 8th and 10th Graders. Science Education, 89, 314-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038553 · DOI
  68. Kang, H., Scharmann, L. C., Kang, S., & Noh, T. (2010). Cognitive conflict and situational interest as factors influencing conceptual change. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5(4), 383-405. Retrieved from https://pegem.net/dosyalar/dokuman/138376-20140102105410-1.pdf
  69. Kikas, E. (2004). Teachers' conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 432-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20012 · DOI
  70. Kohn, A. S. (1993). Preschoolers' Reasoning about Density: Will it Float? Child Development, 64(2), 1637-1650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb04204.x · DOI
  71. Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and chance. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
  72. Kurup, R. (2014) The Relationship Between Science Teachers' Understandings of the Nature of Science and their Classroom Practices, African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2014.889791 · DOI
  73. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  74. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404 · DOI
  75. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  76. Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & R. Schwartz, S. (2002). Views of NOS Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learners' Conceptions of NOS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497- 521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034 · DOI
  77. Lederman, N. G., & O'Malley, M. (1990). Students' perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740207/pdf · DOI
  78. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education volume II (pp. 600-620). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
  79. Lee, J. K. (2002). Digital history in the History/Social Sciences classroom. The History Teacher, 35(4), 503-517. https://doi.org/10.2307/1512472 · DOI
  80. Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (2001). What do we know about Students' Cognitive Conflict in Science Classroom: A Theoretical Model of Cognitive Process Model? Proceedings of the 2001 AETS Annual meeting, Costa Mesa, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453083).
  81. Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S., Kim, J. Kwon, H., & Park, H. (2003). Development of an Instrument for Measuring Cognitive Conflict in Secondary-Level Science Classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 585-603. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10099 · DOI
  82. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, S. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701-724. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20475 · DOI
  83. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357 -380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2 · DOI
  84. Limón, M., & Carretero, M. (1997). Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural sciences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(2), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173085 · DOI
  85. Lin, L.-F. (2010). Video-Based CALL Program for Proficient and Less-Proficient L2 Learners' Comprehension Ability, Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition. Educational Media International, 47(3), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2010.518812 · DOI
  86. Liu, S.-Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Exploring Prospective Teachers' Worldviews and Conceptions of Nature of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281-1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601140019 · DOI
  87. Malik, S., & Agarwal, A. (2012). Use of multimedia as a new educational technology tool -A study. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(5), 468-471. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET 2012.V2.181 · DOI
  88. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737-738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a · DOI · Paper page
  89. Matthews, M. R. (2000). Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education. In D.C. Phillips (Ed.) National Society for the Study of Education 99th Yearbook (pp. 161-192). Chicago: Nat. Society for the Study of Education.
  90. Masnick, A. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Error matters: An initial exploration of elementary school children's understanding of experimental error. Journal of Cognition and Development, 4(1), 67-98. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327647JCD4,1-03 · DOI
  91. Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the 'at rest' condition of an object. Physics Teacher, 20, 10-14. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2340924 · DOI
  92. Moore, J. P. (2013). Promoting Conceptual Understanding via Adaptive Concept Maps (Dissertation). the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
  93. Mortimer, E. F., & El-Hani. C. N. (2014). Introduction in Mortimer, E. F. and C. N. El-Hani (eds) Conceptual Profiles A Theory of Teaching and Learning Scientific Concepts. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 42. Dordrecht: Springer. ix-xvii.
  94. Mulvey, B. K., Chiu, J. L., Ghosh, R., & Bell, R. L. (2016). Special education teachers' nature of science instructional experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 554-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21311 · DOI
  95. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: for States, by States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  96. Niebert, K., & Gropengiesser, H. (2015). Understanding Starts in the Mesocosm: Conceptual metaphor as a framework for external representations in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 37(5-6), 903-933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1025310 · DOI
  97. Norman, D. A. (1983). Some Observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds). Mental Models. pp. 15-34. Hilldale. NJ: Lawrence Elbaum Associates.
  98. Novak, J. (1977). A theory of education. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  99. Oberle, C. D., McBeath, M. K., Madigan, S. C., & Sugar, T. G. (2005). The Galileo bias: A naive conceptual belief that influences people's perceptions and performance in a ball-dropping task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 643-653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.643 · DOI
  100. Piaget, J. (1930). The Level of Water. In Paul, K., The Childs's Conception of Physical Causality (pp.164-179). New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
  101. Pines, A. & West, L. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research within a source of knowledge framework. Science Education, 70, 583-604. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730700510/pdf · DOI
  102. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 33-50). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
  103. Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2013). Learning through the affordances of representation construction. In Russell Tytler, Vaughan Prain, Peter Hubber & Bruce Waldrip. Constructing Representations to Learn in Science (pp. 1-14). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher
  104. Rane, L. V. (2015). Investigating Student's Conceptual Understanding of Free Fall Motion and Acceleration Due to Gravity. International Peer-Reviewed Refereed Journal, II(VI), 01-08.
  105. Rohrer, D. (2002). Misconceptions about incline speed for nonlinear slopes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 963-973. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.4.963 · DOI
  106. Rubia, de la L., Arino, S., Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Undergraduate Student Views of the Nature of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1685-1709. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500693.2013.875637 · DOI
  107. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational Interest: A Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455 · DOI
  108. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B.J. Acher, A., Kenyon, L., & Fortus, D. (2012). MoDeLS: Challenges in Defining a Learning Progression for Scientific Modeling. In A. C. Alonzo & A.W. Gotwals (eds.), Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions, 101-137. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers
  109. Seung, E., Bryan, L. A., & Butler, M. B. (2009). Improving Preservice Middle Grades Science Teachers' Understanding of the Nature of Science Using Three Instructional Approaches. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 157-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9130-2 · DOI
  110. Shavelson, R. J. (2009). Reflections on learning progressions. Presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPs) Conference, 1-12.
  111. Shah, I., & Khan, M. (2015). Impact of multimedia-aided teaching on students' academic achievement and attitude at elementary level. US-China Education Review A,5,5, 349-360. https://doi.org/10.17265/2161- 623X/2015.05.006 · DOI
  112. She, H. C. (2002) Concepts of a higher hierarchical level require more dual situated learning events for conceptual change: a study of air pressure and buoyancy. International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 981-996. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098895 · DOI
  113. Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The "warming trend" in conceptual change research: the legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_5 · DOI
  114. Skoumios, M. (2009). The effect of sociocognitive conflict on students' dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(4), 381-399. http://www.ijese.net/makale/1406
  115. Sorensen P., Newton, L., & McCarthy, S. (2012) Developing a science teacher education course that supports student teachers' thinking and teaching about the nature of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(1), 29-47. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02635143.2012.671767 · DOI
  116. Sormunen, K., & Köksal', M. S. (2012). Advanced science students' understandings on nature of science in Finland. European Journal of Educational Research, 3(4), 167-176. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085989
  117. Suppapittayaporn, D., Emarat, N., & Arayathanitkul, K. (2010). The effectiveness of peer instruction and structured inquiry on conceptual understanding of force and motion: a case study from Thailand, Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903513573 · DOI
  118. Sutton, C. R. (1980). The learner's prior knowledge: a critical review of techniques for probing its organization. European Journal of Science Education, 2, 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528800020202 · DOI
  119. Tasdere, A., & Ercan, F. (2011). An alternative method in identifying misconceptions: structured communication grid. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2699-2703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.173 · DOI
  120. Thompson, F., & Logue, S. (2006). An exploration of common student misconceptions in science. International Education Journal, 7(4), 553-559. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854310.pdf
  121. Toth, E. E. (2016) Analyzing ''real-world'' anomalous data after experimentation with a virtual laboratory. Education Technology and Research Development, 64, 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9408-3 · DOI
  122. Toplis, R. (2007) Evaluating Science Investigations at Ages 14-16: Dealing with anomalous results. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 127-150. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500690500498278 · DOI
  123. Tytler, R., Haslam, F., Prain, V., & Hubber, P. (2009). An explicit representational focus for teaching and learning about animals in the environment. Teaching Sci., 55(4), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9154-9 · DOI
  124. Unal, S. (2008). Changing students' misconceptions of floating and sinking using hands-on activities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7(3), 134-146. Retrieved from http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/abstracted.php?level=5&icid=877545
  125. Unal, S., & Costu, B. (2005). Problematic issue for students: Does it sink or float? Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(1), Article 3, 1-16. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289652049_Changing_students'_misconceptions_of_floating_ and_sinking_using_hands-on_activities
  126. Vera, F., & Rivera, R. (2011). A piece of paper falling faster than free fall. European Journal Physics, 32, 1245-1249. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/32/5/012 · DOI
  127. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental Models of the Earth: A Study of Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123-183. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1801_4 · DOI
  128. Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213-1230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980201004 · DOI
  129. Vosniadou, S. (2008a). Bridging culture with cognition: a commentary on "culturing" conceptions: from first principles. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 277-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9098-9 · DOI
  130. Vosniadou, S. (2008b). Conceptual change research: An introduction. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.) Handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.
  131. Vosniadou, S. (2014). Conceptual Change. In D.C. Phillips (Eds.) Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy. Stanford University, pp. 171-174.
  132. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  133. Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the translation of nature of science understandings into instructional practice: Teachers' nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Educations, 36, 425-466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.786852 · DOI
  134. Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9157-6 · DOI
  135. White, C., Easton, P., & Anderson, C. (2000). Students' Perceived Value of Video in a Multimedia Language Course. Educational Media International, 37(3), 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980050184736 · DOI
  136. Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2006). University Physics 12 edn. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
  137. Zago, M., & Lacquaniti, F. (2005). Cognitive, perceptual and action-oriented representations of falling objects. Neuropsychologia, 43, 178-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.11.005 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anggoro, S., Widodo, A., Suhandi, A., & Treagust, D. F.
Affiliations
  • Muhammadiyah University Purwokerto (ID)
  • Indonesia University of Education (ID)
  • Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Anggoro, Subuh
ORCID
Venue
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Publisher
Modestum Ltd
Published
2019-04-11
Volume
15
Issue
8
ISSN
  • 1305-8215 (ISSN-L)
  • 1305-8223
DOI
10.29333/ejmste/105275
OpenAlex
W2939874309
Cited by
35
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3
FWCI
10.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
Keywords
discrepant events, conceptual change, force and motion, pre-service primary teachers, cognitive conflict, misconceptions, learning progression, direct instruction, remedial teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review