You are here:

Changing Conceptions in E-Learning: Debates and Dialogues
PROCEEDINGS

, University of Sydney, Australia ; , Access Testing, Australia

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-60-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

Conceptual change is widely acknowledged as one of the most significant obstacles to effective science education. Exactly what constitutes this complex process, however, is still in debate. In this paper, the most successful methods by which conceptual change has been achieved are briefly explored. We propose a less common method for restructuring preconceptions in e-learning: student observation of dialogue informed by misconception research. Vicarious learning, as this method is often termed, has both theoretical and empirical support. It validates students' previous conceptions and concerns and allows students to consider both sides of a learning dialogue without the pressure of being active participants. Preliminary results from the domain of quantum mechanics suggest that vicarious learning can have a more enduring impact on student conceptions than traditional expository approaches.

Citation

Muller, D.A. & Eklund, J. (2006). Changing Conceptions in E-Learning: Debates and Dialogues. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2006--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1360-1367). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 12, 2024 from .

© 2006 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In S. Carey& R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind (pp. 257-291). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. Scholnick, K. Nelson, S. Gelman & P. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget's legacy (pp. 293-326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  3. 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. 129-186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  4. Chi, M.T.H. (2005). Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions are Robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 161-199.
  5. Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious Learning from Dialogue and Discourse. Instructional Science, 27(6), 431-458.
  6. Craig, S.D., Driscoll, D.M., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialogue in an intelligent tutoring system: interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 163(121).
  7. Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(970-977).
  8. Diakidoy, I.-A.N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335-356.
  9. DiSessa, A.A. (1996). What do "just plain folk" know about physics? In D.R. Olson (Ed.), Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling. Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell Publishers. DiSessa, A.A. (In press). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  10. DiSessa, A.A., & Sherin, B.L. (1998). What Changes in Conceptual Change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155-1191.
  11. Guzzetti, B.J., Williams, W.O., Skeels, S.A., & Wu, S.M. (1997). Influence of Text Structure on Learning Counterintuitive Physics Concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 701-719.
  12. Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-Engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics
  13. Johnston, I., & Consortium for Upper Level Physics Software. (1996). Solid state physics simulations: the Consortium for Upper-Level Physics Software. New York: John Wiley& Sons.
  14. Lee, J., Dineen, F., McKendree, J., & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious Learning: Cognitive and Linguistic Effects of Observing Peer Discussion. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
  15. McDermott, L.C., & Shaffer, P.S. (2001). Tutorials in Introductory Physics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  16. McKendree, J., Stenning, K., Mayes, T., Lee, J., & Cox, R. (1998). Why Observing a Dialogue May Benefit Learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(2), 110-119.
  17. Muller, D.A. (2005). Inside the quantum mechanics lecture: changing practices. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Sydney.
  18. Muller, D.A., & Sharma, M.D. (2005). Student conceptions of quantum tunneling. Paper presented at the International Conference on Physics Education, New Delhi.
  19. Schunk, D.H., & Hanson, A.R. (1985). Peer Models: Influence on Children's Self-Efficacy and Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 313-322.
  20. Schunk, D.H., Hanson, A.R., & Cox, P.D. (1987). Peer-Model Attributes and Children's Achievement Behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 54-61.
  21. Schober, M.F., & Clark, H.H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and observers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211232.
  22. Sharma, M.D., Millar, R., & Seth, S. (1999). Workshop Tutorials: Accommodating Student-Centered Learning in Large First Year University Physics Courses. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 839-853.
  23. Sokoloff, D.R., & Thornton, R.K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. The Physics Teacher, 35(10), 340-347.
  24. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 4569.
  25. Wittmann, M.C., Morgan, J.T., & Bao, L. (2005). Addressing student models of energy loss in quantum tunneling. European Journal of Physics, 26, 939-950.
  26. Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. (2001). Introductory thermal concept evaluation: assessing students' understanding. The Physics Teacher, 39, 496-504.
  27. Zollman, D., Rebello, N.S., & Hogg, K. (2002). Quantum mechanics for everyone: Hands-on activities integrated

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References