![]() ![]() There are also constraints on students' ways of reasoning, such as constraints on the nature of causal explanations, which can give rise to misinterpretations of scientific information. According to Chi (2013), in addition to false intuitive theories, people also have false beliefs and false mental models. However, not all of students' conceptions can be characterized as unitary and systematic intuitive theories. According to the impetus theory the motion of an object is maintained by a force internal to the object (impetus) which was acquired when the object was originally set in motion ( McCloskey, 1983). These systematic beliefs are at variance from Newtonian mechanics and resemble a medieval theory of motion known as impetus theory. For example, McCloskey (1983) showed that there are systematic beliefs about the motion of objects that influence people's interactions with objects in the real world. There is some evidence to support the claim that students' conceptions represent relatively stable and deeply held intuitive theories. According to the third approach, known as framework theory, students' conceptions consist of a collection of beliefs and presuppositions, which are organized in loose but relatively coherent framework theories. ![]() The second approach, known as “knowledge-in-pieces, claims that students” conceptions consist of a multiplicity of phenomenological principles or p-prims, which are abstracted from experiential knowledge. The first, known as the classical approach, claims that students conceptions have the status of unitary intuitive theories, often resembling earlier theories in the history of science. There are three main points of view on this matter. Researchers agree on the presence of these intuitive understandings, but disagree when they try to describe their nature. On the contrary they bring to the science learning task intuitive understandings of the physical world, which can be very different from the scientific concepts and theories presented in the science classroom ( Driver and Easley, 1978 Clement, 1982 McCloskey, 1983 Novak, 1987). Students are not blank slates when they are first exposed to the learning of science. I will then discuss their implications for science education. In the pages that follow I will focus on three aspects of this development: the creation of intuitive understandings, the process of science learning, and the presence of conceptual co-existence. ![]() In the last 50 or so years, research in science education has provided a great deal of information about how students develop an understanding of science concepts. In order to be effective science education needs to make students aware of their intuitive understandings, provide scientific information gradually and in agreement with students' learning progressions and develop students' reasoning abilities and executive function skills. These developments are gradual and slow and follow a learning progression. During the development of science knowledge students must also create new concepts and new belief systems which do not necessarily supplant their framework theories but co-exist with them. It is argued that in order to understand science students need to make important changes in the way they represent and explain the physical world as well as in their ways of reasoning. Framework theories are different from currently accepted science and impose constraints on how students understand the scientific explanations of phenomena causing the creation of fragmented or synthetic conceptions. These intuitive understandings are organized in skeletal conceptual structures known as framework theories. College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, AustraliaĬhildren construct intuitive understandings of the physical world based on their everyday experiences. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |