ABSTRACT
In this study, our basic contention was that it is essential for researchers to answer the question, “Where does cognitive conflict really arise from?” with more precision than has heretofore been attempted. First, we examined how the term “cognitive conflict” has been treated in the existing literature and try to pinpoint some difficulties, related to inexplicitness or imprecision. Second, we investigated the students’ resources that cause cognitive conflict in learning gravitational potential energy. Finally, we illustrated the structure of creating cognitive conflict by using a framework of knowledge and belief, and we explained how students locate their resources, interact with those resources, and so create cognitive conflict. We also discuss how identifying the structure of creating cognitive conflict helps us understand and address the issue of students’ cognitive conflicts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies on Science Education, 27, 1–52.
Bisanz, J. & LeFevre, J. (1990). Strategic and nonstrategic processing in the development of mathematical cognition. In D. F. Bjorklund (Ed.), Children’s strategies: Contemporary views of cognitive development (pp. 213–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Black, K. & Wittmann, M. (2009). Procedural resource creation in intermediate mechanics. In Physics Education Research Conference, AIP conference proceedings (pp. 97–100).
Chantor, G. N. (1983). Conflict, learning, and Piaget: Comments on Zimmerman and Blom’s “Toward an empirical test of the role of cognitive conflict in learning. Developmental Review, 3, 39–53.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129–160). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Chi, M. T. H. & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limόn & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Damon, W. & Killen, M. (1982). Peer interaction and the process of change in children’s moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 347–367.
de Jong, T. & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31, 105–113.
Demaree, D., Stonebraker, S., Zhao, W., & Bao, L. (2005). Virtual reality in introductory physics laboratories. In AIP Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, vol 790 (pp. 93–96).
diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.
Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481–490.
Duit, R., Treagust, D. F. & Widodo, A. (2008). The conceptual change approach and the teaching of science. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 629–646). New York: Routledge.
Elby, A. & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554–567.
Etkina, E. (2000). Weekly reports: A two-way feedback tool. Science Education, 84, 594–605.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Gire, E. & Manogue, C. (2008). Resources students use to understand quantum mechanical operators. In AIP Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 115–118).
Hammer, D. (1994). Students’ beliefs about conceptual knowledge in introductory physics. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 385–403.
Hammer, D. (1996). Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics. Science Education, 79, 393–413.
Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, supplement, 68, 52–59.
Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harrison, A. G., Grayson, D. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigation a grade 11 student’s evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 259–275.
Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383–396.
Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M. G. A. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13.
Jones, B. F., Pierce, J. & Hunter, B. (1988–1989). Teaching students to construct graphic representations. Educational Leadership, 46, 20–25.
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.
Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T. & Koh, H. (2005). The influence of students’ cognitive and motivational variables in respect of cognitive conflict and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1037–1058.
Langfield-Smith, K. (1994). Cognitive map. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Human behavior (pp. 647–653). New York: Academic Press.
Lee, G. (2007). Why do students have difficulties in learning physics? Toward a structural analysis of student difficulty via a framework of knowledge and belief. New Physics (The Journal of Korean Physical Society,) 54, 284–295.
Lee, G., & Byun, T. (2011). An explanation for the difficulty of leading conceptual change using a counterintuitive demonstration: The relationship between cognitive conflict and responses. Research in Science Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9234-5
Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S., Kim, J., Kwon, H., & Park, H. (2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 585–603.
Lee, G., Shin, J., Park, J., Song, S., Kim, Y., & Bao, L. (2004). Alternative conceptions, memory, & mental models in physics education. Physics Education Research Conference, AIP conference proceedings, 165–168.
Lee, G., Shin, J., Park, J., Song, S., Kim, Y., & Bao, L. (2005). An integrated theoretical structure of mental models: Toward understanding how students form their ideas about science. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 25, 698–709.
Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.
Lising, L. & Elby, A. (2005). The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 73, 372–382.
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.
Meredith, D. C. & Marrongelle, K. A. (2008). How students use mathematical resources in an electrostatics context. American Journal Physics, 76, 570–578.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the ‘at rest’ condition of an object. Physics Teacher, 20, 10–20.
Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110–128). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.
Niaz, M. (1995). Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems: a dialectic–constructivist perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 959–970.
Niaz, M. (2001). Response to contradiction: Conflict resolution strategies used by students in solving problems of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 205–211.
Niaz, M. (2006). Facilitating chemistry teachers’ understanding of alternative interpretations of conceptual change. Interchange, 37, 129–150.
Novak, J. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implication of children’s science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinmann.
Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International University Press.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structure: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 33–50). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
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, 167–200.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 221–227.
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M. & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66, 212–224.
Reichertz, J. (2002). Objective hermeneutics and hermeneutic sociology of knowledge. In U. Flick, Ev Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative research: A handbook. London: Sage.
Rittle-Johnson, B. & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 313–349.
Saenz, C. (2009). The role of contextual, conceptual and procedural knowledge in activating mathematical competencies (PISA). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 123–143.
Sigel, I. E. (1979). On becoming a thinker: A psychoeducational model. Educational Psychologist, 14, 70–78.
Sinatra, G. M. (2002). Motivational, social, and contextual aspects of conceptual change: A commentary. In M. Limόn & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 187–197). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Symon, K. R. (1971). Mechanics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
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, 297–328.
Tuminaro, J. & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games. Physical Review Special Topic, Physics Education Research, 3, 020101-1-22.
Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81, 387–404.
Venville, G. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031–1055.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.
Vosniadou, S. & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213–1230.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Blom, D. E. (1983). Toward an empirical test of the role of cognitive conflict in learning. Developmental Reviews, 3, 18–38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Here is a case study example of students’ cognitive conflict from our previous study (Lee et al., 2004, 2005). In that study, we gave a conceptual pretest on circular motion to four students (all of whom participated voluntarily) at a high school in Korea. The pretest was designed to evaluate students’ conceptual understanding of circular motion (see Figure 4) through the question: When a coin is on a rotating disk at a constant speed, which is the direction of the force (or forces) on the coin in an inertial frame?
The pretest on circular motion
As outlined in Figure 5, after the test, the students experienced a virtual reality simulation developed by Demaree, Stonebraker, Zhao & Bao (2005) that involved circular motion. We then conducted a test measuring cognitive conflict and held individual interviews. We used the Cognitive Conflict Level Test (CCLT) developed by Lee et al. (2003) for measuring students’ cognitive conflict. Using the 12 items of CCLT, we were able to count the total scores of cognitive conflict (the maximum score is 48; 4 score × 12 items = 48 score).
Research procedure
In the pretest, from among the four students, only one (John) chose the correct answer and presented a relevant reason for his answer. John chose “toward the center of the circle” as the direction and gave as his reason, “Because the direction of acceleration is the direction of force.”
As seen in Table 3, John scored 63 % overall on the assessment of cognitive conflict, even though he chose the right answer and observed a result consistent with his answer. Based on the cognitive conflict test result, we can see that even though John chose the right answer with correct rationalization, he exhibited a type of conflict in explaining the circular motion phenomenon, a conflict that we call unexpected cognitive conflict because it is an anomalous conflict.
In order to interpret this unexpected cognitive conflict, we conducted an individual interview with John. During our interview, we found that when John saw the circular motion problem, he experienced two simultaneous mental models. However, his choice was based on his criteria for one of those models, namely “through physics,” as he stated.
For him, “through physics” meant “like thinking force, acceleration, velocity …and using them.” He added, “There is only one force that is toward the center of the circle. Because the direction of acceleration is the center, the direction of force is the center too.”
However, he also possessed another mental model, summarized by his words “through my own experience.” For him, this refers to:
Something which I have felt in my everyday experience …. When I play soccer …there is no force in the direction of the center. There should be a force in the direction of the motion …. For many years I have had this idea, long before I learned about circular motion.
He added, “Actually, I have had these two ideas [through physics and through my own experience] in my mind since my middle school years.”
Firstly, in this case study, we can see that a student was able to form diverse mental models through different approaches to solving a problem, even if the student demonstrated his models in part. Secondly, we can also see that there were many resources that interacted with each other and created cognitive conflict.
Appendix 2
This appendix shows how we can apply the framework of knowledge and belief in order to better explain students’ cognitive conflict. Figure 6 shows the structure of a student’s (called, John) cognitive conflict between “centripetal force” and “force as mover,” identified and interpreted via the framework of knowledge and belief.
The structure of creating student John’s cognitive conflict between centripetal force and force as mover illustrated by the framework of knowledge and belief
Our first impression was that John’s knowledge of circular motion was weak. When he saw the circular motion problem, he recalled the concept of centripetal force, which he had learned in school from his physics teacher (external or disciplinary authority). However, he could analogize the idea of force as a mover (e.g. impetus of movement) from past experience (internal or intrinsic authority that comes when someone makes personal sense of an idea). He recognized these two ideas (centripetal force and force as a mover) as being inconsistent with each other. John had two different experiences with circular motion: One was his experience in a physics class, while the other was personal experience. However, these experiences were stored in his long-term memory without being related to one another. When he saw the circular motion question, the knowledge stored within his long-term memory was activated through the thinking process. For example, through analogical reasoning, he formed the force-as-mover model. He also recalled centripetal force, which he accepted in his physics class without having a deep understanding of the concept. After recognizing the conflict between the two models, he chose the centripetal force model without explaining that conflict.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, G., Yi, J. WHERE COGNITIVE CONFLICT ARISES FROM?: THE STRUCTURE OF CREATING COGNITIVE CONFLICT. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 11, 601–623 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9356-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9356-x