European Journal of Education Studies
ISSN: 2501 - 1111
ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
10.5281/zenodo.163535
Volume 2│Issue 8│2016
TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Mehmet Kural1, M. Sabri Kocakülah2
Ministry of National Education, Turkey
1
Department of Science Education,
2
Balıkesir University, Turkey
Abstract:
At the beginning of the 1980’s, one of the most striking explanations of conceptual
change was made by Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog (1982) with a Conceptual
Change Theory based on a Scientific Revolution Theory of Kuhn (1970). In Conceptual
Change Theory, learning was explained with the Piaget (1970)’s concepts such as
assimilation and accommodation. Especially at the beginning of 1990, the Conceptual
Change Theory was called as a cold conceptual change, for solely taking the cognitive
factors of individuals, and for not taking the affective factors like motivation into
consideration (Pintrich, Max & Boyle, 1993). In their studies Tyson, Venville, Harrison
& Treagust (1997) (1997) and Alsop & Watts suggested a multidimensional structure of
conceptual change including affective characteristics. Dole & Sinatra (1998) have
emphasized information processing in conceptual change and have also described the
impact of motivation on conceptual change in their Cognitive Reconstruction of
Knowledge Model. The Authors explain how the affective and cognitive characteristics
interact with each other, and they come up with the warming trend in the conceptual
change. Gregoire (2003) has emphasized the automatic evaluation of message and
emotions such as fear and anxiety. In order to show how these constructs effect
conceptual change, the author has proposed Cognitive Affective Model of Conceptual
Change called Hot Conceptual Change. According to the Zhou (2010), although hot
factors, such as motivation, are added up to the conceptual change models cumulatively
in time, they have little evidence at the point of science teaching. Author proposed a
model called “Argumentation Approach in Teaching Science” in order to raise temperature
in science teaching by using argumentation approach. In this study, we tried to raise
temperature more than Zhou (2010) did and started hot trend in science teaching. In
this paper, conceptual change literature has been summarized and our teaching model
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved
Published by Open Access Publishing Group ©2015.
1
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
based on a hot conceptual change and supported by motivational and metacognitive
strategies has been introduced. Furthermore, application of our hot model to the
Photoelectric Effect Teaching was presented.
Keywords: conceptual change; hot conceptual change; teaching for hot conceptual
change; photoelectric effect
Introduction
As a result of interactions with physical world, students come to science classes with
some ideas and conceptions (Tytler, 2002). In the literature, there are a lot of definitions
for this existing ideas or conceptions. For example: “alternative conceptions” (Driver &
Easly, 1978), “misconceptions” (Helm, 1980) or “children’s science” (Gilbert, Watts &
Osborne, 1982). In their study, Pines & West (1986) defined “personal knowledge” as a
“spontaneous knowledge” and they expressed that this occurred as a result of personal
interaction with environment, parents, books or cultural features. Posner, Strike,
Hewson & Gertzog (1982) suggested the term existing conceptions. The term
“preconceptions” is used in many studies (Clement, 1982; Clement, Brown & Zeitsman,
1989). In this study, we will prefer the term “preconceptions”.
Student’s preconceptions is often different from conceptions which scientists
have been constructed so far and resists to change that put the hard barrier in front of
science teaching (Tytler, 2002). It is a common view in the literature that preconceptions
persist after the uses of traditional methods in instruction. (Gilbert, Osborne &
Fensham, 1982; Tytler, 2002). How student’s preconception change towards to scientific
conceptions and which strategies enable this change have been one of the most striking
point of all time in the literature.
Conceptual Change Theory
From the beginning of 1980s to the present, conceptual change has been playing a great
role on studies based on science teaching and learning (Treagust & Duit, 2008). In 1982,
Posner, Strike, and Hewson & Gertzog tried to explain conceptual change by the most
striking theory of literature named Conceptual Change Theory (CCT). CCT is based on
the Kuhn (1970)’s Theory of Scientific Revolution. According to this theory, scientists
could sometimes fail at explaining new realities with their present perspectives. This is
called “crisis”. In such conditions, scientists move away from making science and begin
to seek new paradigms by trending to philosophy. If the new reality can be explained
by a new paradigm, scientists start using the new paradigm and abandon the old one.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
2
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Posner et al. (1982) established CCT by adopting crisis and transition continuum from
existing / old paradigm to conceptual change.
CCT is based on Piaget (1970) in the point of explaining learning. Students’
tendency of using preconceptions when they encounter the new phenomena to explain
the new concepts is defined as assimilation. However, in some cases, preconceptions do
not allow students to explain new phenomena successfully. They realize that their
preconceptions are incapable of solving the problems and this condition makes them
feel dissatisfied. Students feel the need for changing or reorganizing their existing
conceptions. This stage is called “accommodation” in CCT. Posner et al. (1982) stated that
if the existing conception was found unsuccessful, it would more likely to be rejected. If
the new concept has a potential to solve the problem, it will be more likely to be
accepted. According to authors, for the conceptual change, a student must have a
conceptual ecology related to his / her existing concept and there must be anomalies
that make him / her feel dissatisfied. Also, new concept must be comprehensible,
plausible, and fruitful. The term comprehensible indicates the new concept’s potential
to solve problem and plausible means student’s being in accordance with knowledge
that he / she has constructed up to now. Fruitfulness indicates the feature of new
concept that implies applicability, transferability. It means the new concept’s potential
to encourage students to conduct new researches (Hewson, 1981; Posner et al., 1982;
Hewson & Hewson, 1983; Hewson & Thorley, 1989). CCM explains conceptual change
with dissatisfaction and new concepts’ features like comprehensibility, plausibility and
fruitfulness. If the new concepts aren’t perceived as intelligible, plausible and fruitful,
preconceptions of students will persist and conceptual change doesn’t occur.
Conceptual Change Approaches after Recommendation of CCT
It could be seen in the literature that a great number of studies (shown in Table 1) based
on conceptual change were conducted in the post CCT period. Carey (1985) explained
conceptual change by emphasizing the restructuring of the knowledge rather than its
change and asserted that this restructuring period wasn’t in the assimilation phase but
in the accommodation phase. The author suggested that there are two different kinds of
conceptual changes: weak and strong restructuring. In weak restructuring, new
relations between preconceptions and the new ones are established or some
modifications are constructed on preconceptions in order to explain the problem.
However, strong restructuring can occur through radical restructuring by moving one
conceptual system to another. Vosniadou & Brewer (1987) explain conceptual change
with weak restructuring and radical restructuring. While weak restructuring indicates
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
3
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
creating a new conception by linking existing with new conception, radical
restructuring indicates theory change like the change in Posner et al. (1982)’s CCT.
Vosniadou (1999) defined conceptual change as “restructuring”. The Author emphasizes
the enrichment of students’ conceptions by their experiences. Thagard (1992) explains
conceptual change process in two stages: weak / strong restructuring that is similar to
Carey (1985)’s definition. According to the author, weak restructuring means regulating
preconceptions without changing them. The strong restructuring may result in two
different circumstances. The Author stated that transitions may occur among relative
conceptions and this seems like a bird navigating between the branches of a tree. Also
reform transition may occur between quite different conceptions and this can be
regarded as a bird switching trees.
Chi, Slotta & de Leeuw (1994) alleged that ontological perspectives of
conceptions in student mind have an effect on conceptual change. According to the
authors, conceptual change occurs if students’ concepts move from one category to
another. Students have ontological categories that concern with assets and objects in the
universe. These categories are called “Matter”, “Processes” and “Mental States”. “Matter”
means personal classification of assets and objects like being alive – dead, heavy – light,
solid – liquid. Phenomena and links take place in process category. The authors
suggested that preconceptions indicate the category of matter, while scientific
conceptions indicate the category of processes. If these two concepts are ontologically
compatible, the conceptual change occurs easily. However, if both are ontologically
incompatible, conceptual change is a difficult process. Chi et al. (1992) explained the
conceptual change process as similar to Thagard (1992). They stated that in the
assimilation phase, ontological category of concept stayed the same, but in the
accommodation phase it changed. As stated in this paragraph, beside implication of
change, researchers emphasized reconstruction of knowledge in order to explain
conceptual change. Studies based on CCT were continued from the beginning of 1980s
to 1990s. Hewson & Hewson (1984) put forth two possible outcomes when students
encounter two concepts that have potential to conflict with each other. If students have
no background about two concepts, both concepts may become logical thus conflict
does not occur. If a student compares two concepts and realizes their confliction, he /
she accepts the new concept and rejects the old one. According to Hewson & Thorley
(1989), intelligibility, plausibility and fruitfulness formed the status of new concepts.
When the status of the new concept was found more plausible and intelligible, status of
old concepts was abandoned and replaced by new concepts’ status. In the end,
conceptual change process was defined as a “status change” (Hewson & Hewson, 1992).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
4
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Table 1: Conceptual Change Approaches in Post CCT Period
Approach
Learning
Thorley
Hewson
Dissatisfaction,
Comprehensible,
Conceptual change
Rational
is about raising or
Learning
lowering the status
Approach
of the conception
Status Change
CC is change of status
instead of CC
of concept
Rational
Learning
Approach
Approach
Rational
Learning
Approach
Plausible, Fruitful
CCT
CCT
Posner
Hewson &
Hewson &
Approach
Cognitive conflict
Carey
Rational
CC
Conceptual ecology
motivation, goals
and social context
Futures of
Approach
Weak/ Strong
re-structuring,
Change from novice
to expert
Rational
Problem-based
Learning
concept learning,
Approach
tree swapping,
tree switching
Ontological
perspective of CC
In order to explain
conceptual ecology
Most Striking
Conceptual revolution
Thagard
et al.
Posner
CCT
Strike &
Futures of
Chi et al.
CC Approach
Theorists
Most Striking
Knowledge Restructuring
Vosniadou
Theorists
Kuhnien / Piagetian Conceptual Change
CC is a change of
ontological category
of concepts.
Enrichment of concepts,
Restructuring
should be regarded.
Revision, Conceptual
change is a gradual
process.
Strike & Posner (1992) accepted the effect of cognitive element on conceptual change,
but they believed that some add-ons had to be done to conceptual change. The Authors
expressed that, in order to explain the term conceptual ecology, motivation, goals and
social context should be taken into account. Posner et al. (1982) asserted that CCT was a
product of an effort of answering two basic questions. The first question is, in what
conditions a concept is replaced with a scientific one, and the second question is what
the features of conceptual ecology that manages process of selecting the new concept
are. Especially second question was much more criticized by Strike & Posner (1992).
That’s why CCT is cold
In the studies conducted between 1982 and 1993, it has often been proved that classes
using conceptual change based teaching are more successful than the ones using
traditional teaching system to the extent of creating conceptual change. (Dreyfus,
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
5
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Jungwirth & Eliovitch, 1990; Tsai, 2001; Vosniadou, 1999). However, especially after
1993, researchers made cold and classical descriptions to CCT and began to discuss its
limitations (Table 2). CCT started to be criticized for not taking the individual's affective
characteristics like motivation into consideration, but the cognitive elements solely.
Since then, it has come to be called Cold Conceptual Change (Pintrich, Max & Boyle,
1993; Lee & Anderson, 1993; Vosniadou & Ioannides, 1998; Limón, 2001; Duit &
Treagust, 2003). Pintrich et al. (1993) stated that motivational factors and the process of
conceptual change are related. The focus of their criticism to the theory of conceptual
change was its not taking motivational factors into consideration. After the Pintrich et
al. (1993), the criticism of the CCT became the new trend in the literature. Some of these
criticisms to the CCT have been summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: The Criticisms to the CCT
Researcher
The focus of the
Explanation
criticism
Pintrich et al. (1993)
Motivation
Affective characteristics such as motivation are
associated with cognitive processes. Motivation in
conceptual change should be considered.
Sinatra & Pintrich (2003)
Intentional CC
Not only cognition but also to be willing to cognition
Vosniadou (1999)
Classical Structure
Classical structure of CCT requires sudden change.
of CCT
Instead of CCT, enriching the restructuring of concept.
Construction of
In CCT, pre-conceptions which are compatible with
Knowledge
scientific knowledge are not regarded as an
are necessary for conceptual change.
Clement et al. (1989)
opportunity for conceptual change.
Chan et al. (1997)
Cognitive Conflict
Dykstra et al. (1992)
Dreyfus et al. (1990)
There is a probability that students may not feel
dissatisfied with his / her existing conceptions.
Cognitive Conflict
Chan et al. (1997)
Even though cognitive conflict would be meaningful
for teachers there is no guarantee for the students.
Scott et al. (1992)
Cognitive Conflict
Limón (2001)
Cognitive Conflict
Even though cognitive conflict created, there is no
guarantee that result is conceptual change.
Students should be motivated to content, conceptual
ecology should be activated.
Structure of CCM which requires sudden changes has been criticized for being classical
by some researchers. (Vosniadou, 1994; Vosniadou & Ioannides, 1998). Instead of a
sudden change from the existing concept to a scientific one as CCM suggested
Vosniadou (1994) emphasized the enrichment of pre-conceptions or restructuring.
According to the author, conceptual change is a gradual change of the model that
describes the universe in the student’s mind. Clement, Brown & Zietsman (1989) noted
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
6
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
the importance of the students' conceptions to be in compliance with their scientific
concepts. Examples given by the researchers are important for an understanding of
their proposal. Student can often resist the condition that the steady-state bodies apply
a force. However, it is a readily accepted condition for the same student that spring
applies force in the opposite direction to the compressing force. In this case, the
information students have about the spring can be used as a "bridge". Thus, connection
between pre-concepts and new concepts can be established, so additions can be made to
the previous concepts. According to Vosniadou (1994) the accommodation process
occurs in a developmental way by enrichment of pre-conceptions. It is not easy to
change the concepts that have been describing the daily life of students over the years
suddenly.
In some studies which included instructions based on conceptual change,
researchers reported that in many cases students were unable to create meaningful
cognitive conflict and felt dissatisfied with their pre-conceptions (Chan, Burtis &
Bereiter, 1997; Dykstra, Boyle & Monarch, 1992). Dreyfus et al. (1990) and Chen et al.
(1997) have reported that although it is significant for teachers, cognitive conflict may
not be as meaningful for the students. Furthermore, even though students feel
dissatisfied and the cognitive conflict occurs, it may not result with conceptual change
(Scott, Asoko & Driver, 1992). Also, students must be willing for conceptual change
(Sinatra & Pintrich, 2003). It is stated that students should be motivated on the learning
topics and context. Besides, if the students’ conceptual ecology cannot be activated,
cognitive conflict cannot be created (Limón, 2001).
Warming Trend in Conceptual Change
Tyson, Venville, Harrison & Treagust (1997) has proposed a conceptual change model
consisting of three dimensions. The authors criticized the consideration of only
cognitive elements in the CCT, stated that conceptual change models need new
components like ontological, epistemological and social / affective dimensions. They
advocate that if the concepts are classified in the wrong ontological category actually, it
makes students to have difficulties to learn new concepts. In this context, it can be said
that they have a parallel logic with Chi et al. (1994)’s proposals. Researchers asserted
that in order to transfer the wrong categorized concepts to the right category, besides
students' cognitive element, the ontological perspectives of the knowledge and the
social / affective characteristics such as motivation should also be taken into account.
Alsop & Watts (1997) emphasized the importance of not only cognitive but also
affective elements on conceptual change and developed a conceptual model with a
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
7
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
four-dimensional structure; cognitive, affective, conative and self – esteem. Researchers
emphasize the features of the new concept such as intelligibility, plausibility and
fruitfulness as proposed by Posner et al. (1982) in cognitive domain. Alsop & Watts
(1997) stated that the decrease in the interest of the students keep them from believing
scientific knowledge. In their conceptual change model Alsop & Watts (1997) suggested
“Conative” including subgroups such as control, action and trust. Conative is a
dimension that includes students’ awareness of features of the new concepts and action
for cognition. It is a dimension that associated with affective rather than cognitive such
as motivation. Motivation concept is not addressed directly in the model, but it is
related to conative. However, metacognition was not addressed in the cognitive
domain. However, in the Conative dimension “Control” subgroup is concerned with
students’ recognizing of the characteristics of new concepts. For this reason it can be
said that metacognition is indirectly involved in this model.
According to Alsop & Watts (1997), Self Esteem consisting of subscale
dimensions such as Image, Confidence and Autonomy has an effect on conceptual
change. These dimensions include the students’ own statements about how much they
trust themselves while learning science. Image is students’ perceptions about their
ability to relate encountered realities with scientific knowledge. The confidence is
insisting on learning despite the difficulties encountered and the autonomy is related to
the motivation of students in order to overcome questions or academic tasks. In the
conceptual change models proposed by Tyson et al. (1997) with Alsop & Watts (1997),
although it is seen the effects of affective factors discussed, factors proposed by Pintrich
et al. (1993) and Sinatra & Pintrich (2003) such as motivation, self-efficacy beliefs and
metacognition are not taken into account thoroughly.
Yıldız (2008) conducted a study by teaching with metacognitive orientations
based on 5E model and found that metacognition had an effect on conceptual change.
The author integrated motivation and metacognition on Alsop & Watts (1997)’s Four
Dimensional Model of Conceptual Change. As being an affective add-on, motivation
rose the temperature. Moreover, metacognition is a hot-cold contribution for not only as
a concept which is at the level of cognition but also as a concept which is about
motivation (Pintrich, 2003).
The question about one’s affective characteristics and how these characteristics
would interact with the features of the new concept was answered seriously by Dole &
Sinatra (1998). The Authors cited Pintrich et al. (1993) and proposed Cognitive
Reconstruction of Knowledge Model (CRKM) called warming trend in conceptual
change. In this model, motivation is seen as a complementary factor of conceptual
change. According to Sinatra & Pintrich (2003) if students are not motivated, they will
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
8
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
not be able to solve the relationship between scientific concepts with their own. It is
argued in the CRKM that power, stability and consistency of students’ preconceptions
have an effect on conceptual change (Dole & Sinatra, 1998; Sinatra, 2005). If the
students’ ideas are weakly linked and inconsistent with the conceptual framework,
conceptual change is most likely to occur. Not only dissatisfaction but also social
context has been identified as potential motivators in CRKM. According to Dole &
Sinatra (1998), the non-motivated students can be motivated by seeing that another peer
is motivated.
Posner et al. (1982)’s definition of “new concept” is called “message” in CRKM. The
Authors expressed how message and individuals’ affective characteristics interact and
how they affect engagement continuum. Comprehensibility, plausibility, coherent and
compelling have been identified as the characteristics of the message. The message that
contains a high level of these characteristics is more likely to be accepted (Lombardi &
Sinatra, 2010). According to the researchers, engagement continuum is an important
condition for conceptual change but does not guarantee it. However, if there is no
engagement continuum, conceptual change does not occur or resulted as a weak
conceptual change. However, if there is no conceptual ecology and message is not
perceived as comprehensible and plausible, in this case it is necessary to look for the
presence of peripheral cue. If there is, peripheral cue present weak conceptual change
can occur, if not, there is no conceptual change.
Figure 1: Cognitive Reconstruction of Knowledge Model
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) proposed by Petty & Cacioppo (1986) has
made a significant contribution to CRKM. Showing quite similarities with ELM,
Systematic versus Heuristic Information Processing proposed by Eagly & Chaiken
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
9
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
(1993) has an important contribution on CRKM. According to ELM, knowledge is
processed in two different ways: central route processing and peripheral route
processing. Messages are examined in depth in the central route processing. If
individuals identify the value of the message and find it reliable, persuasive and well
structured, ignoring whether the conflict or not with their original message, they will
consider it as useful. Attitudes will change towards the message and it will most likely
be accepted. If the message is misperceived, it will be faced with the boomerang effect
and is likely to be rejected. The second way of knowledge processing “peripheral route
processing” is not based on the understanding and testing the importance of presented
argument or message. Peripheral route processing is based on peripheral characteristics
of message or peripheral cue. It is based on the charm of the received message, the
attractiveness of the resource, the sensational slogans carried by the message and the
transmission quality. In the peripheral route processing, mental abbreviations and
superficial summaries are made. If the message is weak or too complicated or the
learners are not qualified enough, peripheral route processing is used. Students who are
aware of Einstein's popularity can believe in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and
start to advocate it firmly. The teacher’s attitudes indicating his/her agreement on one
condition enable students to think that they need to listen well or students can say
“teacher is always right" to avoid from the information process. This situation can be seen
in Figure 1 as a peripheral cue.
Hot Trend in Conceptual Change
Gregoire (2003) proposed Cognitive Affective Model of Conceptual Change (CAMCC).
The author said that Dole & Sinatra (1998) had established the CRKM by combining
ELM and CCM but noted that there are also shortcomings of this model. According to
Gregoire (2003), the authors have argued that peripheral cues could be added to the
engagement continuum, but they left it open to what extent peripheral cues will affect
the existing cognitive processing. CRKM also may explain the effect of motivation on
the conceptual change but cannot explain the effect of the subliminal factors such as fear
and anxiety on acceptance level of the reform message. Although there are similarities
between CAMCC and CRKM, CAMCC includes more emotional factors such as stress
and threat appraisals. CRKM could not make it obvious how the emotional and
subliminal factors affect belief change.
Fazio (1986) have described the relationship between attitude change and
behaviour. In his model automatic and constructive nature of cognition was underlined.
The Author expressed how automatic evaluations effect the individuals’ interpretation
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
10
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
of an event. In CAMCC, automatic evaluation of message -shown in Figure 2 as an
"implicates self" stage - occurs automatically before evaluating the characteristics of the
message. In what way the reform message will be processed depends on the automatic
evolution in stage "implicates self". Gregoire (2003) defines CAMCC as a hot conceptual
change. Especially stage “implicate self” and explaining of the effect of peripheral cues
on conceptual change are the temperature raising the constructs in the model. It is also
noted that experiencing reform message is effected by fear and anxiety. Moreover, the
author noted that resources, self-efficacy beliefs, motivation and abilities effected
cognitive processes thus they would be effective on conceptual change.
Figure 2: Cognitive Affective Model of Conceptual Change
Theoretical Framework
Numerous studies, which have been conducted from the beginning of 1990s up to now,
show that hot constructs such as motivation are undeniable elements in conceptual
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
11
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
change. In CCT only cognitive conflict is seen as the most important motivator for
conceptual change. However, according to Pintrich et al. (1993), conceptual change is
affected by affective characteristics such as motivation, self-efficacy beliefs, the students'
interest and goal orientation. After Pintrich et al. (1993)’s revolution, researchers began
to add affective factors to the conceptual change models. Chi, Slotte & de Leeuw (1994)
noted that the conceptual change occurred when the concepts switched from one
ontological category to the other. The Authors proposed three ontological categories:
matter, processes and mental states. The third category is connected to affective factors
such as emotions.
Table 3: Conceptual Change Models from Cold to Hot
Theorist
Posner
Conceptual
Contribution to Conceptual
The criticized aspects of the
Change Model
Change
model
CCT / CCM
et al.
1. Assimilation / Accommodation
1. Affective factors are not taken
2. Cognitive conflict
into account.
3. Intelligibility, plausibility and
2. Require sudden change.
fruitfulness of new concept.
3. Preconceptions have not been
seen as an opportunity.
Chi
Theory of CC
et al.
1. Ontological categories
1. Cannot explain how cognitive
2. Stated that conceptual change is
and affective elements interact.
the change of ontological
2. Cannot explain how affective
categories.
elements effect conceptual change.
Tyson
Three
1. Conceptual change has an
1. Lack of metacognition
et al.
Dimensional
ontological, epistemological and
2. Lack of knowledge processing.
Model of CC
social / emotional perspectives
Alsop &
Four
1. Defines features of the new
1.Motivation clearly is not
Watts
Dimensional
concept similar to Posner et al.
contained in the model
Model of CC
2. Conative, Self Esteem and
2. Lack of metacognition
Affective three dimensions were
3. Lack of knowledge processing
added to the CC.
4. Cannot explain the impact of the
peripheral cues
Yıldız
Dole &
Sinatra
Metacognition
1. Integrated the metacognition to
1. Cannot explain the impact of the
Based Four-
CC.
peripheral cues
Dimensional CC
2. Added motivation clearly to
2. Lack of knowledge
Model
Alsop & Watts’s model.
processing
CRKM
1. Defines how affective and
1. The automatic evaluation of
message characteristics interact.
message is not taken into account.
2. Heuristic and systematic
2. Metacognition was defined as
processing was adapted to
the upper limit of "Engagement
CC model.
Continuum" section, but its effect
3.Proposedtheimpact of peripheral
on CC is not clear.
cues on CC.
3. Effect of peripheral cues on CC is
not clear.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
12
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Gregoire
CAMCC
1. The effects of peripheral cues on
1. Lack of metacognition
CC are defined more clearly.
2. The effect of automatic
evaluation of message on CC was
expressed.
CC: Conceptual Change
In their studies Tyson et al. (1997) and Alsop & Watts suggested a multidimensional
structure of conceptual change including affective characteristics (Table 3). Dole &
Sinatra (1998) have emphasized information processing in conceptual change and have
also described the impact of motivation on conceptual change in their CRKM called
warming trend. Gregoire (2003) has emphasized the automatic evaluation of message
and emotions such as fear and anxiety. In order to show how these constructs effect
conceptual change, Kural (2015) has proposed hot conceptual change.
The hot construct motivation has a relation with self-efficacy beliefs (Pintrich &
Schunk, 1996; Pintrich, 2003; Tuan, Chin & Shieh, 2005). Furthermore self-efficacy
beliefs are related with metacognition, so metacognition has an effect on motivation
(Flavell, 1987; Pintrich, 2002). Yıldız (2008) has demonstrated the positive effect of
metacognition on conceptual change and has added cold – hot construct metacognition
on a model that belongs to Alsop & Watts (1997). Although CRKM classified
engagement continuum as a low cognitive engagement and high metacognitive
engagement, effect of metacognition on conceptual change has not been defined
thoroughly in this model. Furthermore, metacognition did not significantly find its
place in CAMCC. In this context, Yıldız (2008)’s study has a critical importance in terms
of making a cold – hot contribution on conceptual change model. As a result, theoretical
background of this study is based on CCM, CRKM and CAMCC. Furthermore, this
study is effected by Yıldız (2008)’s study in which the author integrated metacognition
to conceptual change model. In all these studies mentioned above what researchers
contributed to conceptual change and criticized aspects of their model have been
discussed in Table 3.
Conceptual change literature shows that a number of studies are based on
cognitive conflict / dissonance (Stavy & Berkovitz, 1980, She, 2002, 2003, 2004; Lee &
Byun, 2012; Hadjiachilleos, Valanides & Angeli, 2013). Lee & Byun (2012) proposes a
cognitive conflict as a first essential factor of conceptual change. Hadjiachilleos et al.
(2013) proposed that cognitive conflict associates with affective characteristics.
Although above-mentioned limitations of cognitive conflict continue to be a topic of
criticism (Limón, 2001; Zohar & Kravetsky, 2005), it is clear that it is still one of the most
important element in conceptual change.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
13
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Problem
If the history of conceptual change that starts with Pintrich et al. (1993)’s revolution and
summarized above has been regarded, the need to answer question "How do we teach?"
shows itself dominantly. The period after the CCM, how to apply the model to science
teaching was discussed and many teaching models based on CCM were developed by
researchers (Nussbaum & Novick, 1982; Champagne, Gunstone & Klopfer, 1985; Brown
& Clement, 1989). In CRKM and CAMCC, the authors explain conceptual change with
cognitive and affective constructs but their study remains at the level of cognitive affective psychology. CRKM and CAMCC have a little explanation of how the reform
message will be presented and have little evidence in science teaching point (Zhou,
2010). According to Taasoobshirazi & Sinatra (2011), conceptual change researches
remain at the theoretical level and large numbers of experimental studies have not been
conducted in recent years. Moreover, there is almost no number of teaching model
proposed based on hot conceptual change. How metacognition can be added to a
teaching model based on hot conceptual change? How a teaching model can be
established that has an implication for how to motivate students? Zhou (2010)’s answer
to these questions is argumentation approach. Zhou (2010)’s Argumentation Approach
in Teaching Science (AATS) model has an impact of motivation and turns up the
temperature in science teaching. But this model only emphasizes argumentation
method to motivate students. How can we turn up the temperature in the point of
science teaching? Is enough effort spent in the literature for the creation of meaningful
cognitive conflict? In science classes, how can instructors struggle with heuristic
information processing? Our answers to these questions are not only argumentation
approach but also metacognitive orientation. In this study, in order to raise temperature
in science teaching perspective, we identified motivational and metacognitive
strategies.
In this paper, a cognitive conflict based teaching model supported by
motivational and metacognitive strategies has been proposed for hot conceptual
change. It is named Teaching Model for Hot Conceptual Change (TMHCC). In their
study, Posner et al. (1982) examined students' conceptual change about the modern
physics issue Special Relativity Theory of Einstein. In this study, it has been thought
that it would be appropriate to test the proposed teaching model by teaching modern
physics concepts on which students preconceptions thought to be limited and which are
rather discrete. In this paper, how proposed model was applied in science class will be
presented but the TMHCC’s success in modern physics teaching will not be the subject
of the paper.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
14
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
A New Teaching Model for Hot Conceptual Change
In this research, we recommended a new model for science teaching named Teaching
Model for Hot Conceptual Change (TMHCC). As having a look at the model we
proposed generally, it could be said that the Posner et al. (1982)’s CCM could be seen.
However, looked deeply into the model it could be understood that it is not as “cold” as
it is seen from the point of conceptual change approach. The processes of TMHCC in
Figure 5 are shown below under these headings.
a.
Motivating Students to Learning Context
In the conceptual change literature, cognitive conflict is a must for conceptual change
(Lee & Byun, 2012; Hadjiachilleos, Valanides & Angeli, 2013). For meaningful cognitive
conflict, students should be motivated to the content and should be aware of the
interesting sides of the subject (Limón, 2001; Sinatra, 2005). The term “intention” was
emphasized as an essential factor in conceptual change. If this intention does not exist,
students do not change anything (Sinatra & Pintrich, 2003). Therefore, the first step of
the proposed model in this research is identified as “Motivating Students to Learning
Context”. In this part, the teacher enables students to be aware of the interesting sides of
the subject and their equivalence in their daily lives. This is also the part that the
learning objectives are presented.
b.
Elicit Students Ideas and Preconceptions
It is very important for a teacher whose teachings will be based on the strategy of
conceptual change to focus on in-class discussions to determine the students’ cognition
on the given subject. If teaching based on conceptual change is expected to be effective,
the teacher should identify the preconceptions of his/her students during the teaching
period (Yıldız, 2008). According to Limón (2001), preconceptions of students should be
activated to provide a conceptual change. Moreover, looking into the studies of
conceptual change, it is observed that they are based on the logic that preconceptions
should be elicited and cognitive conflict should be created (Stavy & Berkovitz, 1980;
Chan et al., 1997). Thus, the part “Elicit Students’ Ideas / Preconceptions” was added to
TMHCC. In this part, the ideas of students are elicited and it is tried to proceed with the
conceptual ecologies by asking questions that will arouse their metacognition. Almost
all teaching models which are proposed based on cold conceptual change consist of
teaching processes that elicit students’ preconceptions (Nussbaum & Novick, 1982;
Cosgrove & Osborne, 1985; Champagne, Gunstone & Klopfer, 1985; Niedderer, 1987;
Brown & Clement, 1989). Furthermore, She (2002)’ s Dual Situated Learning Model
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
15
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
(DSLM), which can be accepted as a start in warm conceptual change, and Zhou
(2010)’s AATS, which can be accepted as the innovator of warming trend in science
teaching, consist of the parts that students’ preconceptions were elicited. In AATS
student – student argument is used in order to elicit students’ preconceptions.
However, in TMHCC student – teacher argument is also recommended. A teacher helps
students to recognize the concepts of their own and their friends’ by cognitive
guidance. Also, the teacher asks questions for metacognitive orientation (why your
expression is comprehensible / plausible) to facilitate students to be aware of their
preconceptions and to prepare them for meaningful cognitive conflict.
Figure 3: Teaching Model for Hot Conceptual Change
c.
Overview Which Conceptions / Knowledge Will Conflict With the Discrepant Event
She (2002) emphasized the change in ontologic and epistemologic basis of concepts in
conceptual change with Dual Situated Learning Model (DSLM). Researcher stated that
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
16
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
DLSM was founded by the effect of cognitive psychology theorist such as Piaget (1974),
Posner et al. (1982), Sternberg & Frensch (1996), Steinberg & Clement (1997) and ReaRramirez & Clement (1998). According to the author, students’ preconceptions should
be taken into consideration, motivation should be risen when students feel
dissatisfaction with that concept and a new mental set should be constructed for the
new concept. From the authors’ point of view, there are four basic principles of
conceptual change. First of all, conceptual change is founded on situated learning
elements such as pre-existing mental sets. Secondly, cognitive dissonance should be
formed in students, and then a new mental set should be presented. Thirdly, students’
motivations and beliefs should be encouraged in the stage of cognitive dissonance.
Lastly, conceptual change should encourage students’ epistemologic and ontologic
beliefs about the concept. Author stated that DSLM was founded based on radical
conceptual change and this radical conceptual change is based on the classification of
weak and radical restructuring as Vosniadou & Brewer (1987) did in conceptual change.
She (2002) connects radical conceptual change to the CCT proposed by Posner et al.
(1982). The utterance “dual” means that the model is based on two important functions
for conceptual change. One of them is cognitive dissonance and the other one is
providing new mental sets to the student. In DSLM, new mental sets should be
comprehensible, plausible and fruitful and these features are the legacy of Posner et al.
(1982). The author proposed a teaching model that includes six stages for conceptual
change. The first stage in the model is that in order to teach the planned concept
necessary preconditions, or in other words mental sets, should be identified. It is in
harmony with the statement “there should be a conceptual ecology for conceptual change”
which was proposed in the studies of Posner et al. (1982) and Hewson & Hewson
(1984). In the second stage, students’ ideas and preconceptions are elicited. The first
stage of model laid the groundwork for the second stage. In other words, inadequate
mental sets of students are identified based on the explanations in the second stage.
These three stages in the model proposed by She (2002) became the source of
inspiration to the model proposed in this survey.
Some of the researchers (Dreyfus, Jungwirth & Eliovitch, 1990; Chan et al., 1997;
Vosniadou, 1999; Tsai, 2001) think that students cannot form a meaningful cognitive
conflict. Moreover, some students may not become dissatisfied with their existing
concepts. According to some other researchers (Chinn & Brewer, 1998; Gorsky &
Finegold, 1994; Mason, 2000; Kang, Scharmann & Noh, 2004), a discrepant event does
not guarantee the cognitive conflict. From Posner et al. (1982)’s study up to now,
creation of cognitive conflict has become one of the most basic problem for teaching
strategies or models based on CCM. In Limón’s (2001) point of view, one of the most
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
17
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
important reasons for not forming the cognitive conflict is the students’ inadequate
preconceptions. If the students’ preconceptions or knowledges have inadequate to
conflict with the discrepant event, cognitive conflict does not occur as the teacher
presents the reform message. As it was stated before, it is necessary for a student to be
aware of the preconception that conflicts with the discrepant event for conceptual
change. Therefore, a third part “Overview Which Conception / Knowledge Will Conflict with
the Discrepant Event” is added to the model that is used in this survey. This part is equal
to the third part of DSLM.
d.
Create a Cognitive Conflict
The fourth stage called “creating a cognitive conflict” in the teaching model is a legacy of
Posner et al. (1982). The authors expect teachers to include the students’ anomalies
against current concepts to the teaching atmosphere. Only in this way can students be
motivated to change their preconceptions with scientific one and to notice the features
of new concepts. Also the fourth and the fifth stages of DSLM are the stages of planning
and applying the teaching events. In the fifth stage, opportunities are given to the
students to create new mental sets by becoming dissatisfied with the existing concepts.
It could obviously be observed that She (2002) mentions the concepts of cognitive
dissonance and dissatisfaction, and includes these two concepts into teaching stages.
Zhou (2010)’s model, which is the leader of warming trend in science instructions,
includes the stage of creating a cognitive conflict. It is a well-known fact that cognitive
conflict is essential in many studies of conceptual change literature.
e.
Group Work / Argumentation
In Zhou (2010)’s opinion, when researchers generally focus on conceptual change, this
makes students to become passive in facing cognitive conflicts and as a result the
student can choose memorizing instead of mastering it. In addition, the author
expresses that he managed warming trend in science teaching by argumentation
method and it becomes the source of the model in this survey. According to Wentzel
(1991), students aim at making friends, influencing peers and gaining the appreciation
of the teacher besides understanding the subjects academically. From Tao and
Gunstone’s point of view (1999), computer assisted cooperative learning enables
students to construct their experiences and to understand shared events. Furthermore,
Palmer (2005) and Zhou (2010) emphasized that applying the argumentation method in
class raises the motivation and contributes positively to creation of conceptual change.
According to Limón (2001), argumentation and peer-work enable students to create
more active cognitive conflict. Although their CCM has been called as a cold conceptual
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
18
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
change, Posner et al. (1982) accept that having Socratic discussions in conceptual change
period is an essential role of the teacher. As considering all these factors, the fifth part of
the model in this survey is called “Group Work / Argumentation”.
Güngör (2010) found out that in-class activities effect students’ motivations and
affective characteristics positively by working with more than a thousand students. In
his study, it has been found that the activities like working in a group, discussing the
opinions of the group and asserting his / her opinion motivate the student to the lesson.
These activities are accepted as the strategies that rise motivation of the TMHCC. These
strategies could be combined with teaching based on a conceptual change.
Güngör (2010) reached the outcome that assigning students academically and
giving them academic and motivational feedback raises motivation. Providing clear,
realistic and accurate feedback can help students to get motivated (Pintrich, 2003;
Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Students are given academic and motivating feedback in
Group work / Argumentation part and this is the most obvious evidence that the
“teacher” factor, ignorance of which in conceptual change was criticized by Gregoire
(2003), is taken into consideration in this survey. Furthermore, in group work and
argumentation stage students are asked questions like “why your expression is
comprehensible / plausible” or “did you really understand the presented material”- that will
challenge their metacognition. In this stage of TMHCC, teacher tries to make
metacognitive orientations to provide meaningful cognitive conflict.
f.
Introducing Scientific Concept
In teaching models after Posner et al.’s study (1982), an approach based on cognitive
conflict and then reaching an agreement could be observed (Stavy & Berkovitz, 1980).
“Introducing scientific concept” is added to the model to give opportunities to students
for changing their preconceptions with new and scientific one. The sixth stage in the
model is the part that the teacher is the most active but the information has never been
given directly. Student – student and student – teacher argument methods have been
used as an instructional and motivational strategy. Also we agree with Zhou (2010)’s
proposal about this stage in which students’ results from group work and
argumentation can be used as an opportunity to introduce scientific concept. The
analogies and discussions have a potential to promote motivation (She, 2002). These
methods are also used to foster motivation. In this part, students are given an
opportunity to rethink and discuss the conflict between the preconceptions and the new
concepts. Students will also have the opportunity to evaluate the comprehensibility,
plausibility and the fruitfulness of the new concepts by questions that can challenge
their metacognition.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
19
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
g.
Transferring New Concept to Different Problems
It was stated that researchers criticized classical structure of CCM that required a
sudden change (Vosniadou, 1994; Vosniadou & Ioannides, 1998). Researchers
recommend a conceptual structure that is improved by experiences instead of a sudden
conceptual change with a cognitive conflict. Conceptual change should occur
progressively with experiments and observations (Vosniadou, 1994). As this is also
considered in this survey, a seventh part called “transferring new concept to different
problems” is added to TMHCC. In this part, students will improve their experiences by
encountering the problems especially in their daily lives. The stimulating and
interesting academic tasks, activities and materials are given to students to motivate
them (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Pintrich, 2003) It can be stated that the sixth and the
seventh parts of the model are the parts of accommodation. However, it can be said that
in our TMHCC we try to enrich accommodation phase.
Students are given opportunities for transferring knowledge to different physical
conditions, so they are able to test the plausibility and the fruitfulness of the new
concept. In these parts, students are tried to be persuaded that the new concept is
comprehensible, plausible and fruitful by metacognitive strategies. In She’s (2002)
DSLM; however, the sixth stage is the part that students transfer the learned concept, or
in other words the new mental sets, to other physical conditions. In the Zhou (2010)’s
model, this stage is the stage of “apply”. Student – student or teacher – student
arguments are used as motivational strategies.
h.
Evaluation
The eighth and the last stage shown in Figure 3 is the “evaluation” stage. Students are
asked some questions such as what their conceptions are before and after the
instruction, whether there is any change or not in their conceptions, and if there is a
change, which parts in the instruction cause this change. In evaluation part, in order to
challenge the metacognition (in both knowledge of cognition and regulation of
cognition aspects), the teacher asks students if their preconceptions and new
conceptions are different or not, if there is any difference, what has caused this change
and whether they have a positive outcome in this teaching period or not. Teacher tries
to elicit useful and interesting part of activities and the utility of content learned as a
motivational strategy (Pintrich, 2003). Zhou (2010)’s AATS had a great contribution to
addition of this stage to TMHCC.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
20
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Motivational Strategies in TMHCC
It could be seen that a new period started in conceptual change with Pintrich et al.
(1993). Palmer (2005) stated that motivation, one of the most essential affective factors,
should be taken into consideration more. In this survey, motivation is accepted not only
as a passive variant whose change is observed, but also motivational strategies are put
forward. These motivational strategies are separated into all stages in our model. A
right teaching atmosphere should be created in order to raise students’ motivation.
In our study, cognitive conflict can be regarded as a natural motivator for
conceptual change (Posner et al., 1982). In TMHCC, one of the most important
motivational strategies is the argumentation as Zhou (2010) proposed. Author stated
that scientists construct scientific knowledge by not only observations and experiments
but also discussions with each other and reasoning from statements which the others
claimed. Argument approach has a potential for fostering motivation and it is
functional at the point of science teaching.
Beyond the Zhou (2010)’s AATS, in our TMHCC, more motivational strategies
have been proposed. Providing clear, accurate and realistic academic feedback can help
students to motivate (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The tasks presented in Group Work /
Argumentation stage were designed to provide opportunities to students to be
successful but also challenge them (Pintrich, 2003) and were designed neither too easy
nor too difficult (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The use of cooperative and collaborative
groups motivates students (Pintrich, 2003). Giving students enough time to reach a
conclusion and taking their positive outcomes into consideration and giving
motivational feedback after the completion of an academic task rise motivation
(Güngör, 2010). The analogies and discussions have a potential to promote motivation
are also used based on She (2002)’s proposal.
Metacognitive Strategies in TMHCC
Flavell (1979) defines metacognition as the knowledge of one’s cognition. Metacognition
is defined as the awareness that includes planning the problem solving period, observing
and evaluation periods as well as the knowledge about one’s cognitive period. Studies
on metacognition show that it is consisted of two components as “the knowledge of
cognition” and “the regulation of cognition” (Pintrich, 1999). The knowledge of cognition is
about what one knows about oneself or his / her cognition (Schraw & Moshman, 1995).
Regulation of cognition consists of planning, self-observation and self-evaluation
aspects (Schraw, 1998). Planning is about choosing appropriate strategies, defining
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
21
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
objectives, organizing the time and activating preconceptions (Schraw & Moshman,
1995). Observing means that students are aware of their performances while solving a
problem and that they control their cognitive process periodically. Evaluation means
students’ self-evaluation at the end of the learning period. It evaluates students’ effort
and to what extend he / she reached his / her goals at the end of the learning period.
Students are expected to evaluate themselves as stated in the saying “we managed it
without a stain on our character” (Yıldız, 2008).
Students’ belief of self-efficacy, cognitive and metacognitive strategies are
effective on conceptual change (Pintrich and Garcia, 1991; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia &
McKeachie, 1993; Pintrich et al., 1993). Beeth (1998) stated the positive effect of using the
materials that orientate metacognition on the aspects of comprehensibility and
plausibility in conceptual change. In addition to this, according to Hewson, Beeth &
Thorley (1998), metacognitive activities make a concept easier to learn, and thus it could
be concluded that conceptual change will be easier, too. Pintrich et al. (1993) stated that
belief in self-efficacy was effective in accommodation period of conceptual change. It
could be considered that it is important for students to proceed with developing
metacognition in the accommodation stage, which consists of internalizing the new
concept. In teaching based on conceptual change, Yıldız (2008) showed the positive
effect of metacognitive classroom atmosphere on students’ learning and thus, she
added metacognition to conceptual change.
According to Hennessey (1993), students think about the background of their
belief in current concepts and they make it clear by interpreting the contradictory points
of new concept to the current one, and he thinks that these are related to metacognition.
By taking this interpretation into account, it could be said that if students are given the
opportunity to use statements such as “The new concept is comprehensible because …..” or
“The new concept is plausible because ……” in the accommodation stage of conceptual
change, students’ metacognition improve and a stronger conceptual change occurs. In
teaching plans based on the proposed teaching model in this survey, students are
expected to evaluate their own expressions on account of comprehensibility and
plausibility in the parts that students’ preconceptions appear. In addition, in the stage of
introducing scientific concepts, opportunities are given to discuss the fruitfulness of
new concepts as well as discussing their comprehensibility and plausibility. Especially
in group work / argumentation and evaluation parts, questions on account of regulating
cognition are asked and students are expected to ask themselves whether they are
aware of the presented material or not, or whether they managed it successfully or not.
Motivational and metacognitive strategies mentioned above and used in
TMHCC, also theoretical background of these strategies can be seen in Table 4.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
22
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Table 4: Motivational and Metacognitive Strategies in TMHCC and Their Theoretical
Backgrounds
Stages of TMHCC
Motivational / Metacognitive Strategies
Theoretical
Background
Motivating students to
Students need to be aware of learning topics for
learning context
motivation.
Argumentation
Elicit students’ ideas and
Questions for metacognitive orientation
preconceptions
(Why your expression is comprehensible plausible)
Limon (2001)
Posner et al. (1982)
Zhou (2010)
Hennesey (1993)
Beeth (1998)
Yıldız (2008)
Argumentation
Overview which conception
Students’ conceptual ecology must be
Zhou (2010)
/ knowledge will conflict
activated.
Posner et al. (1982)
with the descripant event
She (2002) students’ pre – existing mental sets
She (2002)
must be elicited for cognitive dissonance.
Create a cognitive conflict
For conceptual change, cognitive conflict can be
Posner et al. (1982)
seen as a natural motivator.
Peers are the potential motivators, Group work,
Argumentation
Group work /
Questions for metacognitive orientation for
Argumentation
meaningful cognitive conflict (Why your
expression is comprehensible–plausible & Did
you understand the material etc.)
Argumentation, Discussion, Analogies
Introducing scientific
Questions for metacognitive orientation
concepts
(Why your expression is comprehensible plausible - fruitful)
Dole & Sinatra (1998)
Gregoire (2003)
Zhou (2010)
Beeth (1998)
Hennesey (1993)
Zhou (2010)
She (2002)
Beeth (1998)
Hennesey (1993)
Yıldız (2008)
Giving academic tasks / problems that challenge
Pintrich (2003)
Transfering new concepts to
students
Beeth (1998)
different problems
Questions for Metacognitive Orientation (Why
Hennesey (1993)
your expression is comprehensible – plausible)
Yıldız (2008)
Eliciting useful and interesting part of activities
and the utility of content learned.
Evaluating
Questions for metacognitive orientation (What
are your conceptions before and after the
instructions, Can you evaluate weak and
Pintrich (2003)
Zhou (2010)
Yıldız (2008)
strong part of instruction? etc.)
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
23
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Overview of Model
Continuous arrows in the Figure 3 show the outflow. Arrows among the stages “group
work / argumentation”, “introducing scientific concept” and “transferring scientific concept to
the new problems” are bidirectional. In this part, argumentation method is dominant. The
questions students ask to each other or to the teacher can cause new problems because
of the classroom atmosphere. Thus, the teacher can want students to rework in groups,
discuss or come to new conclusions by studying on a simulation. The details of this
event will be presented in teaching period. Discontinuous arrows in the model show the
interaction among the boxes. For example, in “evaluation” stage, the teacher asks
students questions and enables them to think about the transition process from old
concepts to the new and scientific ones. Therefore, “evaluation” stage and “eliciting
student’s ideas and preconceptions” stage are combined to each other with discontinuous
arrows. Similarly, the introducing the scientific concept stage and eliciting student’s
ideas and preconceptions stage are also combined to each other with discontinuous
arrows as they interact with each other.
Some Powerful Implications of TMHCC
In this paper, we have tried to focus on a subject which has not been discussed
sufficiently for conceptual change literature that has the warming and hot trends
especially for the last ten years. She (2002) mentions about the motivation at the stage of
cognitive dissonance in DSLM and Zhou (2010) asserts that argumentation method
increases the temperature in science teaching. Zhou (2010) becomes the source of
TMHCC from this point of view. Unlike other models, more motivational strategies as
well were used in this study at all stages of TMHCC to promote conceptual change by
fostering motivation. In Table 5, warming teaching models mentioned and the most
noticeable features of TMHCC are comparatively shown.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
24
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Table 5: Warming Trends in Teaching Models for Conceptual Change and TMHCC
Researcher Theoretical Background
Strengths / Weaknesses
1) Each dual situated learning event consist of two functions:
a) creating dissonance with students’ pre-existing knowledge,
b) providing a new mental set.
2) The new mental set should enable students to see the new concept as
CCM / Motivation
Piaget (1974), Posner et al. (1982)
Learning Model (DSLM)
She (2002) / Dual Situated
/ Model / Hot Construct
intelligible, plausible, and fruitful. (as Posner et al. (1982) suggested)
3) Posner et al. (1982)’s term “conceptual ecology” can be seen as a “pre-existing
mental sets” in the DSLM. This feature is very important for meaningful cognitive
conflict.
4) Motivation is only related with creation of dissonance stage.
5) It lacks metacognition.
1) The author recommended warming trend in science teaching.
2) In this model the temperature in science teaching based on conceptual change is
tried to be increased by argumentation method.
Motivation - Metacognition
CCM – CRKM – CAMCC /
Teaching Science (AATS) /
Argument Approachto
Zhou (2010)
3) It focuses on cognitive conflict; however, there is no effort for meaningful
cognitive conflict in AATS.
4) Pre – existing mental sets in DSLM aren’t taken into consideration in AATS.
5) Metacognition is observed in the last stage, evaluation, in this model. However,
metacognition does not take place in the stages that preconceptions are elicited
and that scientific knowledge is defended and discussions are made.
6) The Author states that CRKM and CAMCC are the sources of AATS; however,
he does not recommend anything on how to struggle with peripheral cues which
are the most major obstacles in students’ conceptual change.
1) Authors recommended hot model in science teaching.
2) Motivational strategies are used in all stages.
3) As in AATS, in TMHCC not only argumentation method but also motivational
strategies such as group work, academic and motivational feedback, etc. were
used.
4) Motivation is in relation with self-efficacy and self-efficacy is in relation with
metacognition. Therefore, metacognition is a hot construct although it is
considered in cognition level.
Motivation / Metacognition
elicited, that discussions are made and that scientific concepts are introduced. It is
CCM – CRKM - CAMCC /
Conceptual Change (TMHCC)
Teaching Model for Hot
Authors
5) In TMHCC, metacognition was added to the stages that preconceptions are
obvious that in science instruction the temperature is higher than the temperature
in AATS.
6) In the model it is anticipated that as metacognition covers more stages, it leads
students to engage and move away from heuristic information processing.
7) It is also considered that metacognition will increase the strength of conceptual
change of students who use central route processing / systematic processing.
8) Like DSLM, it involves regarding pre – existing mental sets with which
discrepant event conflict.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
25
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Methodology
We investigated the influences of the TMHCC on the student’s conceptual changes,
their motivations and attitudes towards physics. The mixed pattern was used in
accordance with the problem of the research. In this paper we only criticized how we
taught photoelectric effect based on TMHCC.
Sample
The sample of the study consisted of 40 students from two grade 11 science classes in
2012/2013 academic year at an Anatolian Teacher High School of a district in Manisa in
Turkey.
Application of TMHCC on the Topic of Photoelectric Effect
In our research, first of all teaching stages, which will be the reflection of each stage in
TMHCC, were determined. These stages are shown in Table 6 below. The whole unit of
Particle Model of Light and Theories of Atom was taught by using TMHCC. In this
paper, only the teaching stages of photoelectric effect are clarified under the subtitles
below in order to give an example for how the model was applied.
Table 6: Teaching stages corresponding to the stages of TMHCC
Stages in TMHCC
Teaching Stages
Motivating Student to Learning Context
What to learn?
Eliciting students’ ideas and preconceptions
Pondering questions
Overview which conception / knowledge will conflict with
the discrepant event
Creating cognitive conflict
Group work / argumentation
Let’s examine the preconceptions
Mission Science
Introducing scientific concept
Let’s introduce with scientific concept
Transferring new concept to different problems
Let’s solve a problem
Evaluation
Evaluation
What to learn?
The first stage of the lesson starts with presenting the objectives of the lesson and
motivating the students to the content. To do these, students are shown the slides
exampled in Figure 4.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
26
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Figure 4: The slides that were shown to the students in “what to learn” part of the lesson
Students are told that a fundamental theme of quantum physics will be focused on in
the lesson and that they will learn a matter that they encounter mostly in their daily life.
Apart from this, students are told that they will learn how photocells and the automatic
doors in shops and supermarkets work.
Pondering Questions
The next stage of the lesson is “pondering questions” part in which students’
preconceptions about photoelectric effect are elicited. In this stage students were given
an electroscope and a zinc plate combined its nob. Metal sheet and the electroscope are
charged negative and the leaves of the electroscope are open. As shown in Figure 5,
monochromatic light comes onto the zinc plate. First of all, students were asked if it was
possible or not to change the charge of the electroscope like that. Then, they were asked
if the charge of the electroscope could be changed or not by increasing the intensity of
light, changing its frequency or changing the type of the metal. In the academic year of
2011/2012, it had been observed that some of the students could not realize that the
colour of the light and its frequency were in relation in the pilot phase of the study.
Therefore, in the real study, the questions about changing the colour and frequency of
the light were asked separately. In order to challenge metacognition, students were
expected to evaluate their own answers on the aspects of comprehensibility and
plausibility. Students also started to criticize other students’ statements in a positive or
negative way as they made explanations. Thus, argumentation atmosphere, which was
one of the motivational strategies in the model, was created. After the argumentation,
teacher had written the given answers on the board and summarized the
preconceptions. The teacher thanked students for their effort to create functional and
effective discussion atmosphere.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
27
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Figure 5: "Pondering questions” part
Let’s Examine Our Preconceptions
For a more meaningful cognitive conflict, students were asked questions such as what
charging the electroscope means and what it means when its leaves are open or closed
at the stage of “examining the preconceptions that will conflict with the discrepant event” in
the research. The slide consisting of the questions asked to the students in the computer
assisted presentation is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: The example of asked questions in the part of “Let’s examine our preconceptions”
An argumentation approach is used as a motivational strategy in this stage. As it could
be understood from Figure 6, first of all it is aimed for students to accept the fact that if
the leaves are open, it means that the electroscope is charged and when it loses its
charge, the leaves are closed. In the previous year, most of the students in the pilot
study replied the questions as “light isn’t charged so it doesn’t affect the electroscope” or “the
charge of the electroscope changes because light is charged” in the part of eliciting the
preconceptions. Therefore, in real study it was thought that students could give similar
answers, so the questions in Figure 6 were added to the presentation. At this stage, it is
thought that the more students’ conceptual ecologies on gaining or losing the charge of
an electroscope are activated the more meaningful cognitive conflict they have.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
28
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Mission Science
The fourth stage in TMHCC is creating the cognitive conflict and the following fifth
stage is the part in which student tries to make explanations about the contradictory
event which causes cognitive conflict by working in groups. These two parts in teaching
were given under the title “Our mission is science”. First of all, students watched a
downloaded video from the internet to create a cognitive conflict. In the first episode of
the video, someone made electrification by rubbing an ebonite stick against a cloth.
Then, he touched the electroscope with that ebonite stick and charged it, and it was
observed that the leaves of the electroscope opened. Everything was easy for students
up to now as there was really an appropriate physical condition to their mental sets
based on classical physics. However, when the person in the video moved something
that cast blue light on the nob of the electroscope, it was observed that the leaves of the
electroscope closed. These stages explained in the video are shown in Figure 7 below.
Figure 7: The stages in the video about photoelectric effect in which cognitive conflict created
Students were asked how they would explain this event (Figure 8.a). They were given
some time and were expected to answer the question by working in groups. At this
stage, for academic and motivational feedback, the teacher joined the discussions by
wandering around the groups without answering the questions. The teacher enabled
students to observe their explanations deeply by asking them questions and so that he /
she could make it meaningful for the other students. Students in groups were given
opportunities to ask the other groups some questions. When the time was up, the
teacher wanted the group speakers to state the answers of the group. In order to
challenge metacognition, groups tried to defend their answer on the point of
comprehensibility and plausibility while they were making explanations.
Thus, the process which started with group work ended in class discussion. Up
to this stage students had not been given any explanations about the scientific concept.
Students were given a new mission and were asked to make it clear by studying on the
computer simulation in group. There were two reciprocal plates on one of which
another metal was put.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
29
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Figure 8: (a) Creation of cognitive conflict and challenge students for group work,
(b) simulation about photoelectric effect, (c) metacognitive orientation.
As seen in Figure 8.b, sheets are tied to a battery and an ammeter. Students were
especially emphasized not to make any changes on battery voltage. Frequency and
intensity of light could be changed in the simulation. Students were given some time
and during that period they were expected to observe the valence in ammeter by
changing the frequency and intensity in the simulation and note down the
consequences.
Metacognitive orientations were done in “Mission Science” part, which is the
equivalent of “Group work and argumentation” stage in teaching. As seen in Figure 8.c,
there were some questions proceeding metacognition such as “Did you understand the
material sufficiently?”, “Did you understand the material?” under the subtitle of “Answer
continuously while studying”. In addition, the teacher guided the students with questions
while wandering around the groups. Finally, the teacher listened to the answers and
wrote a summary on the board. These answers were evaluated by both the group
speakers and the other students of the other groups on the point of plausibility.
Let’s introduce with scientific concept
In this part, in which the teacher is the most active, students are guided to reach the
scientific concepts. It was stated to the students that the leaves of the electroscope close
as electroscope loses charge. After all the students agreed on this, the teacher asked
whether the light is charged or not. In the pilot study in the previous academic year, the
answers were based on the logic that “the light is charged”, so the researcher prepared
himself to such notion in the real study. Students were reminded that the light
propagated with a speed of light, which was the matter in Special Relativity Theory of
Einstein and thought in 10th grade. It was also stated that charged light should carry
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
30
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
charges and these charges should have mass and it was emphasized that therefore the
charges which had mass never propagate with a speed of light. The teacher reached a
conclusion by examining the preconceptions which he / she synthesized with the
answers from groups. It was stated to the students that if the light did not carry charge,
the loss of the leaves of electroscope could only be explained by the emitting of
electrons from the metal plate. The teacher expressed that photons in the light break out
electrons and this event was called photoelectric effect by making connection with the
previous subject photons, which was taught in black body radiation topic.
“Introducing scientific concept” part went on with the teacher’s studying on the
consequences that students reached from the simulations. The teacher asked students
why photoelectric event did not occur in every frequency and why there was an initial
frequency. The teacher explained Einstein’s explanation of photoelectric effect with
these questions. Students in the pilot study in the previous year could reach the
outcome that increasing the power did not cause electron emitting in the simulation.
Therefore, in the real study carried out the following year, it was thought that students
could reach the similar outcomes and the questions in Figure 9 were prepared to be
asked.
Students were asked how increasing the intensity of light effected in the case that
the light could not emit any electron. While some groups could answer immediately,
some others could not answer. Students were given some time and asked to study the
simulation on this point. Thus, all the students could observe that increase in the
intensity was not enough to emit electrons.
Figure 9: Defending the acceptances of modern physics in teaching photoelectric effect
The teacher especially stated that increase of intensity did not mean energy increase. At
this stage, “Let’s examine our preconceptions” part was revised again and after
emphasizing that the intensity of classical wave and energy were directly proportional,
it was stated that light could not be thought as a classical wave. It was also mentioned
that the case that light emitted the electron after a specific initial frequency could not be
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
31
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
explained by classical physics; however, it was a case that could be explained by
Planck’s particle nature of light logic. Students were asked to evaluate the new
information or concepts on the point of plausibility and fruitfulness and thus
metacognitive guidance was made. In addition, at this stage discussions on harmonic or
in harmonic sides of the preconceptions with the scientific conceptions were enabled.
Let’s solve a problem
Students were given new missions on worksheets in “Transferring new concepts to
different problems” part in the teaching model. For example, students were asked to draw
a current - voltage graph in photocell circuit by using the same simulation. Students
were given time and the teacher gave academic feedback by wandering around the
groups. When the time was up, groups gave their answers and started to defend their
conclusion. Afterwards, students went on with the other parts on the worksheet in
which problems such as “what affects the maximum current” or “what affects the stopping
voltage”. As it could be observed, the objective of this part is to enable students to use
the new concept in different physical conditions and to realize how these new concepts
help them to solve other problems.
In this stage, as a metacognitional strategy, students were asked why their
explanations were plausible and why scientific concept was fruitful. It is thought that
students will realize especially how fruitful the new concept is in problem solving part
in teaching.
Evaluation
This part totally consists of the questions that proceed the metacognitive mechanism.
The “evaluation” part in Figure 10 shows the questions that are asked to students. As it
could be seen in Figure 10, students were asked to think about the question at the
beginning of the teaching and to remember what their ideas were before the teaching.
Then, thinking about the current ideas, students were asked to explain what had caused
the change if there were any.
Students were asked to explain in what aspects of their preconceptions were
unsuccessful in explaining the modern physics concepts and in what aspects the new
concept was successful to do this. Students were given opportunities to speak in class to
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the instruction and gave some
recommendations to the teacher for the next lesson.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
32
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
Figure 10: The slides are exampled from “Evaluation” part
Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we tried to summarize conceptual change literature which started with
Posner et al. (1982)’s CCT and came to an end with Gregoire (2003). This study not only
makes why CCT was called cold and classical clear but also asserts the criticisms about
CCT in the literature on the point of cognitive conflict. This study also explains the
period of combining the affective / hot concepts after Pintrich et al. (1993) with
conceptual change models. Zhou (2010) stated that conceptual change literature ended
in Hot Conceptual Change (CAMCC) had very few evidence in science teaching and
added argumentation method to a teaching model based on conceptual change as a hot
factor. Thus, the author stated that he recommended the warming trend in science
teaching. From this point in this paper, we recommended hot trend in science teaching
(TMHCC) by spreading the motivational strategies in Zhou (2010)’s AATS to all stages.
Also cold–hot construct metacognition was integrated to the stages that the
preconceptions were elicited, that group work and argumentations were made, and that
scientific concepts were introduced.
“Epistemologically speaking, the use of argument helps students to get dissatisfied with
their preconception and become more open to scientific concepts. Pedagogically speaking,
the use of argument will motivate students to become more engaged in the learning
process and provide students with opportunities to learn how to respect and be respected
in a community”
Zhou (2010; p.109)
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
33
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
But what can we do for a meaningful cognitive conflict and how can we struggle
with heuristic processing during instructing science? We suggested that -as She (2002)
did- regarding activation of knowledge or preconceptions that conflict with discrepant
event and metacognitive strategies provide a meaningful conflict. Yıldız (2008) found
that metacognitively orientated class atmosphere provided students to be more
metacognitive. From this point of view, it can be said that metacognitive orientation in
TMHCC challenges students to be more metacognitive. Also, Linnenbrink & Pintrich
(2003) asserted that students, who are metacognitive in their learning process, are more
actively and cognitively engaged. So they are more likely to find anomalies and to live
dissatisfaction. It has been thought that the metacognitive strategies in TMHCC have a
potential to challenge students to move away from heuristic processing to systematic
processing. We believe that with TMHCC we started hot trend in science instruction.
About the Authors
Mehmet KURAL*
Dr. Mehmet Kural is currently a physics teacher at the Ministry of National Education.
He received his PhD degree in Department of Physics Education at the Balıkesir
University, Turkey. His contact information is as follows: Akhisar Kayhan Ergun
Professional and Technical High School, Manisa, TURKEY.
E-mail: mehmet_kural1@hotmail.com
M. Sabri KOCAKÜLAH**
M. Sabri KOCAKÜLAH is currently employed as a Professor at Balıkesir University,
Faculty of Education, Department of Primary Science Education in Turkey. He received
his EdD degree in Science Education at the University of Leeds, School of Education,
UK. He has conducted research on students’ understanding of basic physics concepts,
design of teaching to monitor conceptual change and use of rubrics for evaluating
students’ performance during solving physics problems. His recent research studies
focus on peer assessment with rubrics and teaching for conceptual change by
considering affective factors such as metacognition, motivation, self-efficacy and
attitudes.
E-mail: sabriko@balikesir.edu.tr
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
34
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
References
1. Alsop, S. & Watts, D. M. (1997). Sources from a Somerset Village: A model for
informal learning about radiation and radioactivity. Science Education, 81, 633650.
2. Beeth, M. E. (1998). Facilitating conceptual change learning: The need for the
teachers to support metacognition. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 49-61.
3. Brown, D. E. & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions by analogical
reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional
Science, 18, 237-261.
4. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge: MIT Press.
5. Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Effecting changes in
cognitive structures among physics students in cognitive structure and
conceptual change. West L. and Pines A. (Eds.). Academic Press.
6. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of
conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1–40.
7. Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J. D., & Deleeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A
theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and
Instruction, 4, 27-43.
8. Chinn, C.A. & Brewer, W.F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses
to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.
9. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American
Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.
10. Clement, J., Brown, D., & Zeitsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are
misconceptions: finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for grounding instruction on
students’ intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554-565.
11. Cosgrove, M. & Osborne, R. (1985). Lesson frameworks for changing children's
ideas. In Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (eds.) Learning in science: The implications of
children's science. Auckland: Heinemann.
12. Dole, J. A. & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualising change in the cognitive
construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.
13. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the “cognitive
conflict” strategy for conceptual change – some implications, difficulties, and
problems. Science Education, 74 (5), 555-569.
14. 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.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
35
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
15. Duit, R. & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual Change: A powerful framework for
improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education,
25, 671–688.
16. Dykstra, D.I., Boyle, C.F., & Monarch, I.A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in
learning physics. Science Education, 76, 615–652.
17. Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Ft. Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.
18. Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In: Sorrentino, R.M., and
Higgins, E. T. (eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social
Behavior (pp. 204–243), New York: Guilford Press.
19. Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
20. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and the development of
metacognition. In F.E. Weinert ve R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation,
and understanding (21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associate Publishers.
21. Gilbert, J.K., Watts, D.M. & Osborne, R.J. (1982). Students’ concepts of ideas in
mechanics, Physics Education, 17, 62-66.
22. Gorsky, P. & Feingold, M. (1994). The role of anomaly and of cognitive
dissonance in restructuring students’ concepts of force. Instructional Science, 22,
75–90.
23. Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of
teachers’ cognition and appraisal process during conceptual change. Educational
Psychology Review, 15, 117–155.
24. Güngör, A. A. (2010). Teaching practices enhancing students’ affective
characteristics related to physics. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Middle East
Technical University, Ankara.
25. 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.
26. Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students.
Physics Education, 15(2), 92-97.
27. Hennessey, M. G. (1993). Students’ ideas about their conceptualization: Their
elicitation through instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.
28. Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E. & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual
change. In K. G. Tobin ve B. J. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science
education (199-218). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
36
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
29. Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M. G. (1992). The status of students' conceptions. R.
Duit, F. Goldberg and H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical
issues and empirical studies, Kiel, 59-73.
30. Hewson, P. W. & Thorley, R. N. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in
the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541–553.
31. Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M. A. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in
conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13,
1-13.
32. Hewson, M. G. & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’
prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 20, 731–743.
33. Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science.
European Journal of Science Education, 3 (4), 383-396.
34. Kang, S., Scharmann, L.C. & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive
conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34, 71 – 96.
35. Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
36. Kural, M. (2015). Teaching for hot conceptual change: An example of grade 11 modern
physics, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.
37. Lee, O. & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in
middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 585–
610.
38. Lee, G. & Byun, T. (2012). An explanation for the difficulty of leading conceptual
change using a counterintuitive demonstration: The relationship between
cognitive conflict and responses. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 943-965.
39. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for
conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 357–380.
40. Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in
student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
19, 119-137.
41. Lombardi, D. & Sinatra, G. M. (2012). College students’ perceptions about the
plausibility of human-induced climate change. Research in Science Education,
42(2), 201-217.
42. Mason, L. (2000). Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle
school students’ theory change about two controversial topics. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 15, 329–346.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
37
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
43. Niedderer, H. (1987). A teaching strategy based on students' alternative
frameworks-theoretical conceptions and examples. In J. D. Novak (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Second International Seminar: Vol. 2. Misconceptions and
Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics (pp. 360-367). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
44. Nussbaum, J. & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict
and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science,
11, 183-200.
45. Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching.
International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853–1881.
46. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic.
47. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.
48. Pines, A. & West, L. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An
interpretation of research within sources of knowledge framework. Science
Education, 70(5), 583-604.
49. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining selfregulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459-470.
50. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching,
and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-235.
51. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(4), 667–686.
52. Pintrich, P. R. & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in
the college classroom. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation
and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7). Grenwich CT: JAI
Press.
53. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual
change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the
process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-200.
54. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. (1993). Predictive validity
and reliability of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ).
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
55. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of a conceptual
change, Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
38
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
56. Rowell, J. A. & Dawson, C. J. (1985). Equilibration, conflict and instruction: A
new class-oriented perspective. European Journal of Science Education, 4(4), 331-344.
57. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional
Science, 26, 113-125.
58. Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational
Psychological Review, 7, 351-371.
59. Scott, P. H., Asoko, H. M., & Driver, R. (1992). Teaching for conceptual change: A
review of strategies. In R. Duit, Goldberg, F. and Niedderer, H. (Eds.), Research in
physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 310-329). Kiel: IPN.
60. 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.
61. She, H. C. (2003). DSLM instructional approach to conceptual change involving
thermal expansion. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21, 43–54.
62. She, H. C. (2004). Fostering radical conceptual change through dual-situated
learning model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 142–164.
63. Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The warming trend in conceptual change research: The
legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 107–115.
64. Sinatra, G. M. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
65. Stavy, R. & Berkovitz, B. (1980). Cognitive conflict as a basis for teaching
quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature. Science Education, 64, 679–692.
66. Strike, K. & Posner, G. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change, In R. A.
Duschl and R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and
Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 147–176), New York: State University of New
York Press.
67. Tao, P. K. & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force
and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882.
68. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
69. Treagust, D. F. & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical,
methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of
Science Education, 3(2), 297-328.
70. Tsai, C.-C. (2001). Collaboratively developing instructional activities of
conceptual change through the internet: Science teachers’ perspectives. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 619–622.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
39
Mehmet Kural, M. Sabri Kocakülah TEACHING FOR HOT CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL, BEYOND THE COLD AND WARM ONES
71. Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C. & Shieh, S. H. (2005). The development of a
questionnaire to measure students’ motivation toward science learning.
International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639–654.
72. Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. L., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A
multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the
classroom. Science Education, 81, 387–404.
73. Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding in science: Student conceptions
research, and changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48,
14-21.
74. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual
changes. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.
75. Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research: State of the art and future
directions. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives
on conceptual change (pp. 3–13). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
76. Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1987) Theories of knowledge restructuring in
development. Review of Educational Research, 57, 51–67.
77. Vosniadou, S. & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science
education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science
Education, 20(10), 1213-1230.
78. Wentzel K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relationship of social
responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1–24.
79. Yıldız, E. (2008). The effects of metacognition during the instruction based on
conceptual change used with 5E model: An application regarding the force and motion
subject in the 7th grade. PhD Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
80. Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptual change in science: A process of argumentation.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 101-110.
81. Zohar, A. & Kravetsky, S. A. (2005). Exploring the effects of cognitive conflict
and direct teaching for students of different academic levels. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 42(7), 829-855.
Creative Commons licensing terms
Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Education Studies shall
not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violations and
inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access
Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 8 │ 2016
40