ABSTRACT
Elementary and secondary schools have not been successful in teaching students how to use and apply the facts and vocabulary they memorize in social studies and science classes or the computational and reading skills they master in mathematics and language arts classes. Many recent studies document that students can memorize facts and procedures but are unable to use those facts and skills to build arguments, to make predictions, to explain observed phenomena, to solve real-world problems, or to read critically (Anderson & Smith, 1983a; Applebee, Langer, & Mullis, 1986; Carey, 1986; Champagne & Klopfer, 1977, 1984; Champagne, Klopfer, & Gunstone, 1982; Johnson & Wellman, 1982; McKnight et al., 1987; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1978, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1979d, 1983; Roth, 1984; Roth, Smith, & Anderson, 1983; Travers & McKnight, 1985). As a result of these studies, many educators advocate a change from the current emphasis on facts and procedures in K-12 teaching to a new emphasis on teaching for meaningful conceptual understanding (Anderson & Smith, 1987; Armento, 1986; Committee on Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 1985; Fey, 1979; Hiebert, 1984; Hiebert, 1986; Minstrell, 1982; National Academy of Sciences, 1982; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1980; National Research Council, 1979, 1985; National Science Foundation, 1983; Romberg & Carpenter, 1986). The argument is that students need better organized and deeper knowledge of a limited number of central concepts (rather than broad but superficial knowledge of many facts and formulae) in order to develop the higher level abilities that would enable them to use and apply their understandings in meaningful ways. What is meant by “meaningful conceptual understanding?” Is such conceptual understanding a reasonable and attainable goal for school learning?
