Using a Discrepant Event to Facilitate Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Force and Motion
Full Text (PDF)
More Detail
1 Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto, INDONESIA2 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, INDONESIA3 School of Education, Curtin University, AUSTRALIA* Corresponding Author
Abstract
Both students and teachers have misconceptions about Force and Motion, often caused by teachers not being well-prepared to teach the accepted scientific theory. Besides, teachers rarely or never use a cognitive conflict strategy in their teaching. The present study is aimed at investigating the use of a discrepant event to facilitate preservice elementary teachers’ conceptual change on Force and Motion concepts. The main objectives were to (1) investigate conceptual changes in Force and Motion concepts and (2) track students’ conceptual change and their learning progression of these concepts. The research method used an intervention with a mixed method design. Second-semester students (N=120) participated in this study. The research instrument consisted of background information of respondents and their belief of conceptions about Force and Motion. The preliminary study using Direct Instruction and discussion methods. Once students’ conceptual change profiles were known, remedial teaching was conducted through Reflective Conceptual Change Model-assisted Visual Multimedia. The research findings have shown that a discrepant event could help participants engage in conceptual change and have better explanations than before. The profile of their conceptual change and pattern of learning progression are discussed.
License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Article Type: Research Article
EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 15, Issue 8, August 2019, Article No: em1737
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105275
Publication date: 11 Apr 2019
Article Views: 4219
Article Downloads: 2339
Open Access References How to cite this articleReferences
- Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the Sources for our Understandings about Science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013.
- Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E.
- Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1057::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-C.
- Ab Rahim, R., N. Noor, Md. N., Zaid, M. (2015). Meta-analysis on Element of Cognitive Conflict Strategies with a Focus on Multimedia Learning Material Development. International Education Studies, 8(13), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n13p73.
- Allen, M. (2010). Misconception in Primary Science. Open University Press. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
- Akerson, V., & Hanuscin, D. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development programme. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tea.20159.
- Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720107/pdf.
- Akpınar, Y., Ardaç, D. & Er-Amuce, N. (2014). Development and validation of an argumentation based multimedia science learning environment: Preliminary findings. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3848–3853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.853.
- Alonzo, A., & Steedle, J. T. (2008). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93, 389–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20303.
- Anggoro, S., Widodo, A., & Suhandi, A. (2017). Pre-service Elementary Teachers Understanding on Force and Motion. Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, 895, 012151. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012151.
- Amin, T. G. (2009). Conceptual Metaphor Meets Conceptual Change. Human Development, 52, 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1159/000213891.
- Arts, R. W. (2005). A comparison of in-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of Selected standards-based force and motion concepts before and after instruction (Dissertation Capella University).
- Aydeniz, M., & Brown, C. L. (2010). Enhancing pre-service elementary school teachers’ understanding of essential science concepts through a reflective conceptual change model. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(2), 305-326. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1052019.pdf.
- Azman, N. F., Alia, M., & Mohtar L. E. (2013). The Level of Misconceptions on Force and Motion among Physics Pre-Services Teachers in UPSI. 2nd International Seminar on Quality and Affordable Education (ISQAE 2013).
- Baddock, M., & Bucat, R. (2008). Effectiveness of a Classroom Chemistry Demonstration using the Cognitive Conflict Strategy. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1115-1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701528824.
- Bani-Salameh, H. N., 2017. How persistent are the misconceptions about force and motion held by college students? Phys. Educ., 52, 014003, 7 pp. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/52/1/014003/.
- Baser, M. (2006). Fostering conceptual change by cognitive conflict based Instruction on students’ understanding of heat and Temperature concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 96- 114. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75458.
- Beck-Winchatz, B., & Parra, R. D. (2013) Finding Out What They Really Think: Assessing Non Science Majors’ Views of the Nature of Science. College Teaching, 61(4), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2013.809686.
- Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G., (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology-based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063/pdf.
- Borghi, L., De Ambrosis, A., Lamberti, N., & Mascheretti, P. (2005). A teaching-learning sequence on free fall motion. Physics Education, 40(3), 266-273. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/40/3/008.
- Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Framework of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Bulunuz, N., & Jarret, O. S. (2010). The effects of hands-on learning stations on building American elementary teachers’ understanding about earth and space science concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75230.
- Cepni, S., & Sahin, C. (2012). Effect of different teaching methods and techniques embedded in the 5E instructional model on students’ learning about buoyancy force. Eurasian Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education, 4(2), 97-127. Retrieved from http://www.ijpce.org/Effect-of-Different-Teaching-Methods-and-Techniques-Embedded-in-the-5E-Instructional,78551,0,2.html.
- Champagne, A., Gunstone, R., & Klopfer, L. (1983). Naive knowledge and science learning. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(2), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514830010205.
- Chia, C. T. (1996). Common Misconceptions in Frictional Force among University Physics Students. Teaching and Learning, 16(2), 107-116. Retrieved from https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/434/1/TL-16-2-107.pdf.
- Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993) The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(l), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001.
- Chinn C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001) Models of Data: A Theory of How People Evaluate Data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323-393. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_3.
- Choi, H. J., & Johnson, S.D. (2005). The Effect of Context-Based Video Instruction on Learning and Motivation in Online Courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1904_3.
- Creswell, J. W. (2013). Steps in Conducting a Scholarly Mixed Methods Study. DBER Speaker Series, 48. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dberspeakers/48.
- Creswell, J., & Plano, C. V. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
- Cole, M., & Wertsch, J.V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1159/000278475.
- Corcoran, T, Mosher, F. A. & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence-based Approach to Reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Center on Continuous Instructional Improvement Teachers College–Columbia University May 2009. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED506730.
- Dahlan, J. A., & Rohayati, A. (2012). Implementasi strategi pembelajaran konflik kognitif dalam upaya meningkatkan High Order Mathematical Thinking Siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(2), 65-76.
- de Souza, L., Richter, B., & Nel, C. (2017). The effect of multimedia use on the teaching and learning of Social Sciences at tertiary level: A case study. Yesterday & Today, 17, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17159/2223- 0386/2017/n17a1.
- diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2.
- Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008) Turkish Grade 10 Students’ and Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature of Science: A National Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20243.
- Donn, S. (1989). Epistemological issues in science education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
- Driver, R. (1989). Changing conceptions. In P. Adey, Ed., Adolescent development and school practice (pp. 79-103). London: Falmer Press.
- Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770403.
- Druyan, S. (2001). A comparison of four types of cognitive conflict and their effect on cognitive development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(3), 226-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000276.
- Duckworth, E. (2001). Inventing Density. In Duckworth, E., “Tell Me More”: Listening to Learners Explain (pp.1-41). New York: Teachers College.
- Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science - From behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin, Eds., International handbook of science education (pp. 3-26). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Duit, R. (1999). Conceptual change approaches in science education. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 263-282). Amsterdam, NL: Pergamon. Retrieved from https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10007144289/.
- Duit, R., Widodo, A., & Wodzinski, C. (2007). Conceptual change idea: teachers’ views and their instructional practice. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Re-framing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 197–217). Amsterdam: Elsevier, in association with the European Association of Learning and Instruction. Retrieved from https://epdf.tips/reframing-the-conceptual-change-approach-in-learning-and- instruction-advances-in.html.
- Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2012). Conceptual Change: Still a powerful framework for improving the practice of science education. In K. Tan & M. Kim. (Eds.) Issues and challenges in science education research moving forward. Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3980-2_4.
- Duit, R., Treagust, D. & Widodo, A. (2013). Teaching Science for Conceptual Change – Theory and Practice. In. S. Vosniadou (Eds) International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change Second Edition. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/13550/.
- 164682_164682..pdf?sequence=2.
- Drenth, P. J. D. (2006). Responsible conduct in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022265.
- Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th–10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 655–674. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20312.
- Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of Conceptual Assignments and Conceptual Change Discussions on Students’ Misconceptions and Achievement Regarding Force and Motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10054.
- Galili, I. (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: Historical and educational perspectives, International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1073-1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110038585.
- Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R. W., Markman, A. B., Levidow, B. B., Wolff, P., & Forbus, K. D. (1997). Analogical Reasoning and Conceptual Change: A Case Study of Johannes Kepler. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 3-40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0601_2.
- Gilbert, J. K., Watts, D. M., & Osborne, R. J. (1982). Students’ conceptions of ideas in mechanics. Physics Education, 17, 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/17/2/309.
- Goldman, R. (2004). Video perspectivity meets wild and crazy teens: A design ethnography. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(2), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640410001700543.
- Gonen, S. (2008). A study on student teachers’ misconceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about mass and gravity. Journal of Science Education Technology, 17, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9083-1.
- Glynn, M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching with analogy model. In M. Glynn, H. Yeany, & K. Britton, The psychology of learning science (p. 219). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16(2), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/105735600277971.
- Hadjiachilleos, S., Valanides, N. & Angeli, C. (2013) The impact of cognitive and affective aspects of cognitive conflict on learners’ conceptual change about floating and sinking, Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(2), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.811074.
- Halim, A., Meerah, T., & Halim, L. (2009). Development and Application of Diagnostic Test to Identify Students’ Misconception on Quantum Physics. Sains Malaysiana, 38, 543-551. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287416480_Development_and_Application_of_Diagnostic_Test_to_Identify_Students'_Misconceptions_of_Quantum_Physics.
- Halim, L., Yong, T. K., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2014). Overcoming Students’ Misconceptions on Forces in Equilibrium: An Action Research Study. Creative Education, 5, 1032-1042. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.511117.
- Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056– 1065. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14031.
- Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, K. & Stern, E. (2006). Effect of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of floating and sinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.307.
- Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education, 15, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/15/2/308.
- Herman, B. C., & Clough, M. P. (2016). Teachers’ longitudinal NOS understanding after having completed a science teacher education program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9594-1.
- Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ nature of science implementation practices 2–5 years after having completed an intensive science education programme. Science Education, 97(2), 271–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21048.
- Hermita, N., Suhandi, A., Syaodih, E., Samsudin, A., Mahbubah, K., Noviana, E., & Kurniaman, O. (2018). Constructing VMMSCCText for Re-conceptualizing Students’ Conception. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci, 8(3), 102-110. Retrieved from https://www.textroad.com/pdf/JAEBS/Booklet,%20Vol.%208,%20No.1,%20.
- March,%202018.pdf.
- Hewson, P. W. (1992). Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education., National Center for Educational Research, Documentation, and Assessment, June 1992. Madrid, Spain.
- Hubber, P. (2010). Year 8 students’ understanding of astronomy as a representational issue: Insights from a classroom video study. In D. Raine, L. Rogers, & C Hurkett (Eds.), Physics community and cooperation: Selected contributions from the GIREP-EPEC & PHEC, 2009 International Conference (pp. 45–64). Leicester: Lulu, the Centre for Interdisciplinary Science, University of Leicester.
- Iii, J. A. Hand, C. B., & Prain, V. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 785-802. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110098.
- Jarosievitz, B. (2011). ICT, Multimedia used in the national and international educational projects. Informatika, 38, 22. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29484.67204.
- Jin, H., Zhan, L., & Anderson, C. W (2013). Developing a Fine-Grained Learning Progression Framework for Carbon-Transforming Processes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1663-1697. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.782453.
- Kabaca, T., Karadag, Z., & Aktumen, M. (2011). Misconception, cognitive conflict and conceptual changes in geometry: A case study with pre-service teachers. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 1(2), 44-55. Retrieved from http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423908923.pdf.
- Kaltakci, D., & Didis, N. (2007). Identification of pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions on gravity concept: a study with a 3-tier misconception test. AIP Conference Proceedings 899, 499 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2733255.
- Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryılmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 989-1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a.
- Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 71-96. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000021001.77568.b3.
- Kang, S., Scharman, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining Students’ Views on the NOS: Result from Korean 6th, 8th and 10th Graders. Science Education, 89, 314–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038553.
- Kang, H., Scharmann, L. C., Kang, S., & Noh, T. (2010). Cognitive conflict and situational interest as factors influencing conceptual change. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5(4), 383-405. Retrieved from https://pegem.net/dosyalar/dokuman/138376-20140102105410-1.pdf.
- Kikas, E. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 432–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20012.
- Kiray, S. A, Aktan, F., Kaynar, H., Kilinc, S., & Gorkemli, T. (2015). A descriptive study of pre-service science teachers’ misconceptions about sinking–floating. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 16(2), Article 2, 1-28. Retrieved from https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/v16_issue2/kiray/index.htm#con.
- Kohn, A. S. (1993). Preschoolers’ Reasoning about Density: Will it Float? Child Development, 64(2), 1637-1650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb04204.x.
- Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and chance. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
- Kurup, R. (2014) The Relationship Between Science Teachers’ Understandings of the Nature of Science and their Classroom Practices, African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2014.889791.
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404.
- Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & R. Schwartz, S. (2002). Views of NOS Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learners’ Conceptions of NOS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497– 521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034.
- Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740207/pdf.
- Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education volume II (pp. 600–620). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
- Lee, J. K. (2002). Digital history in the History/Social Sciences classroom. The History Teacher, 35(4), 503-517. https://doi.org/10.2307/1512472.
- Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (2001). What do we know about Students’ Cognitive Conflict in Science Classroom: A Theoretical Model of Cognitive Process Model? Proceedings of the 2001 AETS Annual meeting, Costa Mesa, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453083).
- 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(6), 585–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10099.
- Lee, Y., & K. Keckley. (2006). Effects of a teacher-made multimedia program on teaching driver education. Teaching exceptional children plus, 2(5) Article 5. Retrieved on 4 November 2017 from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol2/iss5/art5.
- Lehrer, R., & Schauble, S. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701-724. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20475.
- Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357 – 380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2.
- Limón, M., & Carretero, M. (1997). Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural sciences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(2), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173085.
- Lin, L.-F. (2010). Video-Based CALL Program for Proficient and Less-Proficient L2 Learners’ Comprehension Ability, Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition. Educational Media International, 47(3), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2010.518812.
- Liu, S.‐Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Exploring Prospective Teachers’ Worldviews and Conceptions of Nature of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281-1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601140019.
- Malik, S., & Agarwal, A. (2012). Use of multimedia as a new educational technology tool – A study. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(5), 468-471. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET 2012.V2.181.
- Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a.
- Matthews, M. R. (2000). Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education. In D.C. Phillips (Ed.) National Society for the Study of Education 99th Yearbook (pp. 161-192). Chicago: Nat. Society for the Study of Education.
- Masnick, A. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Error matters: An initial exploration of elementary school children’s understanding of experimental error. Journal of Cognition and Development, 4(1), 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327647JCD4,1-03.
- Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the ‘at rest’ condition of an object. Physics Teacher, 20, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2340924.
- Moore, J. P. (2013). Promoting Conceptual Understanding via Adaptive Concept Maps (Dissertation). the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State.
- Mortimer, E. F., & El-Hani. C. N. (2014). Introduction in Mortimer, E. F. and C. N. El-Hani (eds) Conceptual Profiles A Theory of Teaching and Learning Scientific Concepts. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 42. Dordrecht: Springer. ix-xvii.
- Mulvey, B. K., Chiu, J. L., Ghosh, R., & Bell, R. L. (2016). Special education teachers’ nature of science instructional experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 554–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21311.
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: for States, by States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Niebert, K., & Gropengiesser, H. (2015). Understanding Starts in the Mesocosm: Conceptual metaphor as a framework for external representations in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 37(5-6), 903-933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1025310.
- Nilsson, W., & Castro, B. (2013). Simulation Assisted Learning in Statistics: How important are students’ characteristics? (p. 23). Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/ubideawps/56.htm.
- Norman, D. A. (1983). Some Observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds). Mental Models. pp. 15-34. Hilldale. NJ: Lawrence Elbaum Associates.
- Novak, J. (1977). A theory of education. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660271003.
- Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them (Technical Report No. Cmap Tools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008).
- Oberle, C. D., McBeath, M. K., Madigan, S. C., & Sugar, T. G. (2005). The Galileo bias: A naive conceptual belief that influences people’s perceptions and performance in a ball-dropping task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.643.
- Piaget, J. (1930). The Level of Water. In Paul, K., The Childs’s Conception of Physical Causality (pp.164- 179). New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
- Piaget, J. (1975). The Mechanisms of Perception. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.
- Pines, A. & West, L. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research within a source of knowledge framework. Science Education, 70, 583–604. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730700510/pdf.
- 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 Science Ltd.
- 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(2), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207.
- Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2013). Learning through the affordances of representation construction. In Russell Tytler, Vaughan Prain, Peter Hubber & Bruce Waldrip. Constructing Representations to Learn in Science (pp. 1-14). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.
- Rane, L. V. (2015). Investigating Student’s Conceptual Understanding of Free Fall Motion and Acceleration Due to Gravity. International Peer-Reviewed Refereed Journal, II(VI), 01-08.
- Rohrer, D. (2002). Misconceptions about incline speed for nonlinear slopes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 963–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.4.963.
- Rubia, de la L., Arino, S., Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Undergraduate Student Views of the Nature of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1685–1709. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500693.2013.875637.
- Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational Interest: A Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455.
- Schwarz, C., Reiser, B.J. Acher, A., Kenyon, L., & Fortus, D. (2012). MoDeLS: Challenges in Defining a Learning Progression for Scientific Modeling. In A. C. Alonzo & A.W. Gotwals (eds.), Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions, 101–137. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
- Seung, E., Bryan, L. A., & Butler, M. B. (2009). Improving Preservice Middle Grades Science Teachers’ Understanding of the Nature of Science Using Three Instructional Approaches. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9130-2.
- Shavelson, R. J. (2009). Reflections on learning progressions. Presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPs) Conference, 1-12.
- Shah, I., & Khan, M. (2015). Impact of multimedia-aided teaching on students’ academic achievement and attitude at elementary level. US-China Education Review A,5,5, 349-360. https://doi.org/10.17265/2161- 623X/2015.05.006.
- She, H. C. (2002) Concepts of a higher hierarchical level require more dual situated learning events for conceptual change: a study of air pressure and buoyancy. International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 981–996. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098895.
- Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The “warming trend” in conceptual change research: the legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_5.
- Skoumios, M. (2009). The effect of sociocognitive conflict on students’ dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(4), 381-399. http://www.ijese.net/makale/1406.
- Sorensen P., Newton, L., & McCarthy, S. (2012) Developing a science teacher education course that supports student teachers’ thinking and teaching about the nature of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(1), 29-47. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02635143.2012.671767.
- Sormunen, K., & Köksal’, M. S. (2012). Advanced science students’ understandings on nature of science in Finland. European Journal of Educational Research, 3(4), 167-176. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085989.
- Suppapittayaporn, D., Emarat, N., & Arayathanitkul, K. (2010). The effectiveness of peer instruction and structured inquiry on conceptual understanding of force and motion: a case study from Thailand, Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903513573.
- Sutton, C. R. (1980). The learner’s prior knowledge: a critical review of techniques for probing its organization. European Journal of Science Education, 2, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528800020202.
- Tasdere, A., & Ercan, F. (2011). An alternative method in identifying misconceptions: structured communication grid. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2699–2703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.173.
- Thompson, F., & Logue, S. (2006). An exploration of common student misconceptions in science. International Education Journal, 7(4), 553-559. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854310.pdf.
- Toth, E. E. (2016) Analyzing ‘‘real-world’’ anomalous data after experimentation with a virtual laboratory. Education Technology and Research Development, 64, 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9408-3.
- Toplis, R. (2007) Evaluating Science Investigations at Ages 14–16: Dealing with anomalous results. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 127-150. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500690500498278.
- Tytler, R., Haslam, F., Prain, V., & Hubber, P. (2009). An explicit representational focus for teaching and learning about animals in the environment. Teaching Sci., 55(4), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9154-9.
- Unal, S. (2008). Changing students’ misconceptions of floating and sinking using hands-on activities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7(3), 134-146. Retrieved from http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/abstracted.php?level=5&icid=877545.
- Unal, S., & Costu, B. (2005). Problematic issue for students: Does it sink or float? Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(1), Article 3, 1-16. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289652049_Changing_students'_misconceptions_of_floating_and_sinking_using_hands-on_activities.
- Vera, F., & Rivera, R. (2011). A piece of paper falling faster than free fall. European Journal Physics, 32, 1245–1249. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/32/5/012.
- Vicovaro, M. (2014). Intuitive physics of free fall: an information integration approach to the mass-speed belief. Psicológica, 35, 463-477. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1046022.
- Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental Models of the Earth: A Study of Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W.
- Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123–183. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1801_4.
- Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213–1230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980201004.
- Vosniadou, S. (2008a). Bridging culture with cognition: a commentary on “culturing” conceptions: from first principles. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 277–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9098-9.
- Vosniadou, S. (2008b). Conceptual change research: An introduction. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.) Handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.
- Vosniadou, S. (2014). Conceptual Change. In D.C. Phillips (Eds.) Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy. Stanford University, pp. 171-174.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the translation of nature of science understandings into instructional practice: Teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Educations, 36, 425–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.786852.
- Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Carolan, J. (2010). Using multi-modal representations to improve learning in junior secondary science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9157-6.
- White, C., Easton, P., & Anderson, C. (2000). Students’ Perceived Value of Video in a Multimedia Language Course. Educational Media International, 37(3), 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980050184736.
- Widodo, A. (2004). Constructivist Oriented Lessons: The learning environment and the teaching sequences. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
- Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Diagnosing and dealing with student misconceptions: floating and sinking. Science Scope, April-May, 34-39. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ790452.
- Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2006). University Physics 12 edn. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
- Zago, M., & Lacquaniti, F. (2005). Cognitive, perceptual and action-oriented representations of falling objects. Neuropsychologia, 43, 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.11.005.
How to cite this article
APA
Anggoro, S., Widodo, A., Suhandi, A., & Treagust, D. F. (2019). Using a Discrepant Event to Facilitate Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Force and Motion. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), em1737. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105275
Vancouver
Anggoro S, Widodo A, Suhandi A, Treagust DF. Using a Discrepant Event to Facilitate Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Force and Motion. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(8):em1737. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105275
AMA
Anggoro S, Widodo A, Suhandi A, Treagust DF. Using a Discrepant Event to Facilitate Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Force and Motion. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(8), em1737. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105275
Chicago
Anggoro, Subuh, Ari Widodo, Andi Suhandi, and David F. Treagust. "Using a Discrepant Event to Facilitate Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Force and Motion". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2019 15 no. 8 (2019): em1737. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105275
Harvard
Anggoro, S., Widodo, A., Suhandi, A., and Treagust, D. F. (2019). Using a Discrepant Event to Facilitate Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Force and Motion. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), em1737. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105275
MLA
Anggoro, Subuh et al. "Using a Discrepant Event to Facilitate Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Force and Motion". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 8, 2019, em1737. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105275