Thinking About College Teaching
by Glenda Wilkes, Ph.D.
 

Volume 2: Knowledge Restructuring

Anderson (1990) stated that content learned in a disconnected fashion, that is un-integrated with prior knowledge, is less meaningful to students. A growing body of literature suggests that accessing students’ prior knowledge structures is necessary in helping students learn new content. Four of the many models for implementing this process in the college classroom are briefly presented here.

Early models of conceptual change, such as that of Posner et al. (1982) focused on cognitive aspects of change and suggested that there are four necessary conditions prerequisite to conceptual change. The first is dissatisfaction with current conceptions. A student who is totally satisfied with his or her current understanding will be less likely to consider incorporating new ideas. Secondly, the new conception must be intelligible on her or his level. Third, the new concept must be plausible or consistent with other understandings. Finally, new concepts must appear fruitful or have explanatory power. If we are expecting students to change the conceptual frameworks of their knowledge because of the content they encounter in our courses, then according to Posner et al., these four conditions apply.

Pintrich et al. (1993) extended Posner’s model by integrating motivational constructs such as goal orientation and beliefs. Goal orientation refers to the focus of learning in which mastery oriented students focus on learning and understanding, whereas performance goal oriented students focus on grades. Pintrich et al. suggest that students’ beliefs about their capacity to accomplish a task impacts their ability to change their conceptual frameworks when necessary. Beliefs about performance capabilities in a particular domain (self-efficacy) are also relevant to students’ confidence in their capability to change their ideas when conflict arises between what they already know and what they are learning. Students’ perceptions of the degree of control they have over their own learning (control beliefs), influence whether or not students will remain focused. Pintrich et al. suggest that these processes serve as mediators in the process of conceptual change that are often required when college students integrate new knowledge with prior knowledge.

Nussbaum and Novick (1982) proposed a threefold strategy for changing naive beliefs: (1) reveal student preconceptions; (2) create conceptual conflict by alluding to, but not solving the discrepancies that exist between preconceptions and concepts taught in class; and, (3) encourage development of revised or new schemata through class discussions.

Vosnaidou and Brewer (1987) offer two candidate mechanisms for assisting students in making conceptual changes. The first, socratic dialogues, involves an active teacher proposing alternative frameworks and leading students into constructing conceptually consistent theories in a domain. A second mechanism involves using analogies and metaphors from a different domain, particularly from within students’ base of experience.

References

(Copies of these references may be checked out of the library at the University Teaching Center, 1017 N. Mountain Ave.):

Anderson, J. (1990). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. New York: Freeman.

Nussbaum, J., and Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183-200.

Pintrich, P., Marx, R., and Boyle, R. (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, 167-199.

Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., and Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

Vosniadou, S., and Brewer, W. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57(1): 51-67.