Exploring the effects of cognitive conflict and direct teaching for students of different academic levels

Despite inconclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of cognitive conflict, educators still consider it a significant instructional strategy. One of the challenges of current research is to study the conditions under which cognitive conflict is effective. This research examines the notion that cognitive conflict may have dissimilar effects for students of different academic levels. The study compares the effectiveness of teaching the control of variables thinking strategy to students of two academic levels (low vs. high) by two different teaching methods [inducing a cognitive conflict (ICC) vs. direct teaching (DT)]. One hundred twenty-one students who learned in a heterogeneous school were divided into four experimental groups in a 2 × 2 design. Results show no main effect of teaching method but do show a significant interaction effect between level of students and teaching method. The findings show that students with high academic achievements benefited from the ICC teaching method while the DT method hindered their progress. In contrast, students with low academic achievements benefited from the DT method while the ICC teaching method hindered their progress. The interaction effect was preserved in a retention test that took place 6 months after instruction. The findings show that previous inconclusive findings regarding the effectiveness of the ICC method can be explained by its contradictory effects on students of different academic levels. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 42: 829–855, 2005

[1]  Carol K. K. Chan,et al.  Knowledge Building as a Mediator of Conflict in Conceptual Change , 1997 .

[2]  A. Zohar,et al.  Teachers' beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking , 2001 .

[3]  M. Limón.  On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal , 2001 .

[4]  A. Zohar,et al.  Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-Achieving Students: Are They Mutually Exclusive? , 2003 .

[5]  John A. Ross.  Controlling Variables: A Meta-Analysis of Training Studies , 1988 .

[6]  H. Tillema,et al.  Promoting student teacher learning through conceptual change or direct instruction , 1997 .

[7]  D. Klahr,et al.  All other things being equal: acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. , 1999, Child development.

[8]  M. Linn,et al.  Learning and Instruction: An Examination of Four Research Perspectives in Science Education , 1988 .

[9]  Mansoor Niaz.  Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems: A dialectic–constructivist perspective , 1995 .

[10]  Barbara J. Guzzetti,et al.  Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education , 1993 .

[11]  L. Schauble,et al.  Belief revision in children: the role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. , 1990, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[12]  Amos Dreyfus,et al.  Applying the cognitive conflict strategy for conceptual change - some implications, difficulties, and problems , 1990 .

[13]  J. A. Ross,et al.  Experimental problem solving: An instructional improvement field experiment , 1983 .

[14]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Beyond Cold Conceptual Change: The Role of Motivational Beliefs and Classroom Contextual Factors in the Process of Conceptual Change , 1993 .

[15]  S. Caravita.  A re-framed conceptual change theory? , 2001 .

[16]  William F. Brewer,et al.  An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. , 1998 .

[17]  J. Mintzes,et al.  Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology , 1997 .

[18]  L. Mason.  Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle school students’ theory change about two controversial topics , 2000 .

[19]  A. Zohar.  Teaching a thinking strategy: Transfer across domains and self learning versus class‐like setting , 1994 .

[20]  M. Chi,et al.  From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts , 1994 .

[21]  Paul Gorsky,et al.  The role of anomaly and of cognitive dissonance in restructuring students' concepts of force , 1994 .

[22]  P. Hewson,et al.  Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change , 1982 .

[23]  D. Klahr,et al.  Bridging Research and Practice: A Cognitively Based Classroom Intervention for Teaching Experimentation Skills to Elementary School Children , 2000 .

[24]  J. Nussbaum,et al.  Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy , 1982 .

[25]  Mario Carretero,et al.  Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural sciences , 1997 .

[26]  A. Zohar.  Transfer and Retention of Reasoning Strategies Taught in Biological Contexts. , 1996 .

[27]  S. Vosniadou,et al.  Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science , 2001 .

[28]  L. Schauble,et al.  Cross-Domain Development of Scientific Reasoning , 1992 .

[29]  Anton E. Lawson,et al.  Encouraging the transition from concrete to formal cognitive functioning-an experiment , 1976 .

[30]  Murray S. Jensen,et al.  Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy , 1995 .