ABSTRACT
In the space allowed for this chapter, I will concentrate on model based, cognitive strategies for fostering conceptual change as an outcome in individual students. Most recent strategies will involve considering the roles that group discussions and co-construction with a teacher can play, and so there the approach is socio-cognitive. Other recent studies in the literature address other social, cultural, metacognitive, and motivational factors that have very important infl uences on conceptual change. For example, in their chapters in this book, Smith and Wiser discuss students’ metacognitive diffi culties in understanding the nature and function of models; and Sinatra and Mason discuss these as well as motivational issues. While all of these research areas are very important, we still need to address an enormous gap that remains at the core of conceptual change theory: we do not have an adequate cognitive model of the basic conceptual change process; we do not have a good understanding of how fl exible models are constructed. These are the longterm questions motivating this chapter. Most of the classical theory of conceptual change in science education (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982, Strike & Posner, 1992) is either about conditions for change (e.g., dissonance), effects of change (e.g., a more plausible conception, developmental stages of conceptions), or factors that make it easier or more diffi cult (e.g., the presence of a persistent preconception). What is missing is a fuller specifi cation of mechanisms of change — causal descriptions of processes that produce conceptual change. Many suspect that models and analogies can play a central role in conceptual change. But there is little consensus on a defi nition for the term model itself. The term is used for such a wide variety of different entities that one wonders how useful the broad concept can be, meaning that there is a need to narrow in on the most fundamental type of model in science learning in order to attain focus. And we are hard pressed to describe something as basic as the relationship between analogies and models in science learning — a clear description of this has been elusive and diffi cult to formulate. Historians of science such as Hesse (1966) and Harre (1972) understood that this relationship is complex and subtle in science itself, so we should expect no less in the area of student learning. Thus, there is still much work to do within the basic cognitive core of conceptual change theory as well as outside the core.
