Options
Conceptions about physics under the scrutiny of a communicative approach to learning : when misconceptions can be understood as misunderstandings
Date de parution
2015-8
Résumé
Science education is reputed for being challenging to the learners, and is considered a society issue in national or international reports (Eurydice, 2006; Musset, 2009). Despite extensive description and research work on the learner’s difficulties Driver et al., 1985; Viennot, 1996, they are still challenging, both for the attempt to reach a theoretical consensus (Sawyer, 2006) and for efficient teaching (Roth, 2008). Cognitive psychology most often approaches the difficulties of the learners as individual conceptions prior to learning activities taking place. The first work on learner’s conceptions (Posner et al., 1982) were considering concepts as closely linked with the learner’s use of a particular word, which has led to a critique (Barth, 1994) : how can the researcher consider a learner has acquired a new conception based on the mere choice of a particular word? Researchers (Vosniadou, 2008) in agreement with this critique, claim that conceptions exist independently from a particular language use. Yet, even when the analysts rely on the behavioral responses to an experimental task, such responses depend on communicative processes, as the task itself can lead to various interpretations (Grossen, 1988). In addition, learners do not appear consistent enough in these behavior across various tasks, which is a reason why conceptual change theorists are debating about how fragmented the learner’s knowledge is (diSessa, 1993).
This research proposes to approach the same problem differently : instead of taking the individual learner as the unit of observation, it focuses on single situations of misunderstanding encompassing the learners and the teacher as a whole unit. The choice of this focus is based on the hypothesis that some of what appears to be a misconception can be explained by a misunderstanding. Indeed, the learners’ understanding is first acknowledge through communication before the analyzer attribute it to an individual conception (Perret- Clermont, 1979). If some of the difficulties in learning science can be explained as situations of misunderstanding, there will be no reason to think there are also due to misconceptions, or to any individual ability.
In order to make a description of misunderstanding, the learner’s point of view and the teacher’s point of view have been reconstructed based on various types of data, including written documents and recorded verbal interaction. An extensive corpus of data was constructed on a single-case study, in a clinical approach of teaching and learning activities (Leutenegger, 2009), having an ecological validity (Crowley & Schunn, 2001). A teaching sequence on Newton mechanics was video and audio recorded during 3 month in a high-school classroom, including 25 pupils ( 17 y.o.). The researcher identified critical moments Ludvigsen et al. (2010), corresponding to the misunderstandings, after coding the audio and video material, and analyzed it on two levels Doise (1982): the situation - to reconstruct the context of interpretation - and the meaning - in order
to identify diverse meaning on the same object of discourse. The analysis of misunderstanding is based on an original typology, built from Natural Logic Grize (1996), taking into account both the discursive and the cognitive feature.
Results consists in the description of 10 situations of misunderstanding, of which one example is briefly mentioned below.
Misunderstanding #1: the sign “g” was understood as a constant value by a group of learners, however as a force instead of an acceleration. Usually interpreted as a confusion between acceleration and force in general, the analysis of this misunderstanding shows that the pupils only confuse the two about “g” and emphasize the idea of a constant, in a way directly related to the teacher’s discourse. Hence, rather than due to an individual conception of the learners, prior to learning, we claim that this confusion is due to a misunderstanding of the teacher discursive representation Grize (1996).
We conclude from this research that it is more difficult to attribute a given expression or behavior of a learner to an individual conception prior to learning that assumed in science education literature. Some well known misconceptions may be explained by a (mis-)interpretation of the teacher communication, and cannot be considered individual mental representation prior to the learning. They are instead co-constructed misunderstanding.
Barth, B.-M. (1994). Le savoir en construction : former à une pédagogie de la compréhension. Paris: Retz.
Crowley, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2001). Designing for science. LEA, Mahwah.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10 (2 & 3), 105-225.
Doise, W. (1982). L’explication en psychologie sociale. Paris, Presses universitaires de France.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Eurydice. (2006). L’enseignement des sciences dans les établissements scolaires en europe. etat des lieux des politiques et de la recherche (Tech. Rep.). Eurydice, Bruxelles.
Grize, J.-B. (1996). Logique naturelle & communications. Paris: PUF.
Grossen, M. (1988). L’intersubjectivité en situation de test. Cousset: Editions Delval.
Leutenegger, F. (2009). Le temps d’instruire. Bern : P. Lang.
Ludvigsen, S., Rasmussen, I., Krange, I., Moen, A., & Middleton, D. (2010). Intersecting trajectories of participation; temporality and learning. In S. Ludvigsen, I. Rasmussen, L. A., & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites. London, New York: Routledge.
Musset, M. (2009). Sciences en classe, sciences en société. Dossier d’actualité, 45 , 1-15.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1979). La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Peter Lang, Berne.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66 , 211-227.
Roth, W.-M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological perspective. Educational Research Review, 3 , 30-50.
Sawyer, K. R. (2006). The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (p. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Viennot, L. (1996). Raisonner en physique : la part du sens commun. De Boeck Université, Paris.
Vosniadou, S. (2008). Bridging culture with cognition: a commentary on “culturing conceptions: from first principles”. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3 , 277-282.
This research proposes to approach the same problem differently : instead of taking the individual learner as the unit of observation, it focuses on single situations of misunderstanding encompassing the learners and the teacher as a whole unit. The choice of this focus is based on the hypothesis that some of what appears to be a misconception can be explained by a misunderstanding. Indeed, the learners’ understanding is first acknowledge through communication before the analyzer attribute it to an individual conception (Perret- Clermont, 1979). If some of the difficulties in learning science can be explained as situations of misunderstanding, there will be no reason to think there are also due to misconceptions, or to any individual ability.
In order to make a description of misunderstanding, the learner’s point of view and the teacher’s point of view have been reconstructed based on various types of data, including written documents and recorded verbal interaction. An extensive corpus of data was constructed on a single-case study, in a clinical approach of teaching and learning activities (Leutenegger, 2009), having an ecological validity (Crowley & Schunn, 2001). A teaching sequence on Newton mechanics was video and audio recorded during 3 month in a high-school classroom, including 25 pupils ( 17 y.o.). The researcher identified critical moments Ludvigsen et al. (2010), corresponding to the misunderstandings, after coding the audio and video material, and analyzed it on two levels Doise (1982): the situation - to reconstruct the context of interpretation - and the meaning - in order
to identify diverse meaning on the same object of discourse. The analysis of misunderstanding is based on an original typology, built from Natural Logic Grize (1996), taking into account both the discursive and the cognitive feature.
Results consists in the description of 10 situations of misunderstanding, of which one example is briefly mentioned below.
Misunderstanding #1: the sign “g” was understood as a constant value by a group of learners, however as a force instead of an acceleration. Usually interpreted as a confusion between acceleration and force in general, the analysis of this misunderstanding shows that the pupils only confuse the two about “g” and emphasize the idea of a constant, in a way directly related to the teacher’s discourse. Hence, rather than due to an individual conception of the learners, prior to learning, we claim that this confusion is due to a misunderstanding of the teacher discursive representation Grize (1996).
We conclude from this research that it is more difficult to attribute a given expression or behavior of a learner to an individual conception prior to learning that assumed in science education literature. Some well known misconceptions may be explained by a (mis-)interpretation of the teacher communication, and cannot be considered individual mental representation prior to the learning. They are instead co-constructed misunderstanding.
Barth, B.-M. (1994). Le savoir en construction : former à une pédagogie de la compréhension. Paris: Retz.
Crowley, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2001). Designing for science. LEA, Mahwah.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10 (2 & 3), 105-225.
Doise, W. (1982). L’explication en psychologie sociale. Paris, Presses universitaires de France.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Eurydice. (2006). L’enseignement des sciences dans les établissements scolaires en europe. etat des lieux des politiques et de la recherche (Tech. Rep.). Eurydice, Bruxelles.
Grize, J.-B. (1996). Logique naturelle & communications. Paris: PUF.
Grossen, M. (1988). L’intersubjectivité en situation de test. Cousset: Editions Delval.
Leutenegger, F. (2009). Le temps d’instruire. Bern : P. Lang.
Ludvigsen, S., Rasmussen, I., Krange, I., Moen, A., & Middleton, D. (2010). Intersecting trajectories of participation; temporality and learning. In S. Ludvigsen, I. Rasmussen, L. A., & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites. London, New York: Routledge.
Musset, M. (2009). Sciences en classe, sciences en société. Dossier d’actualité, 45 , 1-15.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1979). La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Peter Lang, Berne.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66 , 211-227.
Roth, W.-M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological perspective. Educational Research Review, 3 , 30-50.
Sawyer, K. R. (2006). The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (p. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Viennot, L. (1996). Raisonner en physique : la part du sens commun. De Boeck Université, Paris.
Vosniadou, S. (2008). Bridging culture with cognition: a commentary on “culturing conceptions: from first principles”. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3 , 277-282.
Notes
, 16th Biennial EARLI Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction « Towards a Reflexive Society », Limassol, Cyprus
Identifiants
Type de publication
conference presentation
