Response of science learners to contradicting information: a review of research

ABSTRACT

This article presents a critical and systematic review of the science education research literature that explores the response of learners to contradicting information (anomalous data). The review is framed in the cognitive conflict process model (CCPM) and provides an analysis of (1) the types and frequency of possible responses, (2) the conditions by which cognitive conflict is successfully triggered, and (3) the preliminary conditions that eventually favour conceptual changes. The results conclude, among other things, that anomaly-induced cognitive conflict is rather inefficient if triggered in isolation, without supportive processing activities, or without the initial availability of conceptual alternatives. A prospective synthesis is then provided, supporting Ohlsson’s view of science education activities that concentrate on cognitive utility rather than emphasising on discrediting initial conceptions. A reflection about the integration of such considerations with contemporary issues is also provided.

KEYWORDS:

• Review
• science education
• conceptual change
• response
• anomalous data
• contradicting information

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Cognitive conflict is still the object of active research programs, especially in Asian science education. It also actively pursues its development in mathematics education and in general educational psychology.

2. Researchers like Darden (2006) and Abelson (1959) have described ways in which learners respond to discrepant data. For example, the latter proposed that denial, bolstering [reinforcing the initial idea for resisting], differentiation, and transcendence were the four major ways by which participants reacted.

3. About the origin of mass extinctions and the cold-blooded dinosaur theory.

4. ‘In summary, students experiencing a discrepant event could be expected to: attempt to 1- explain it using existing schema, 2- try to understand the problem more clearly using different forms of imagery such as sketching or analogies, 3- search for information which may provide a solution, or which might support a proposed solution, 4- avoid making a response, or 5- withdraw from participation’ (Appleton, 1996, p. 4).

5. Ohlsson gives an interesting example: ‘a student who believes in the inheritance of acquired characteristics can object to the bodybuilding example by saying that the bodybuilders’ baby is in fact stronger, but the effect is so small in one generation as not to be measurable; the effect becomes apparent only over multiple generations’ (Ohlsson, 2009, p. 22).

6. However, other researchers have distinguished many other types. See Lee and Kwon (2001) for a more thorough analysis of the possible types of conflict.

7. However, a careful reading of the book suggests that these labels, attached to the opponents, were in some ways rather ‘caricatural’ of the paradigms the authors were supposed to represent.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada [435-2015-1376].

Notes on contributors

Patrice Potvin

Patrice Potvin is a professor of science and technology education at the Département de didactique of the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). A former teacher (7 years), he has also worked in the development of numerous training programs. Holder of the Research Chair on interest of young people towards science and technology (CRIJEST) and director of the Science and technology education research team (EREST), his research and development interests focus on student interest in science, open science learning, computer-assisted learning, teacher training, and conceptual change through a neuro-educational approach (cognitive control, inhibition and engagement). Author of more than 360 publications and papers, he recently published, with the Université Laval Press, the book ‘Making students learn school science and technology: Using Epistemology, didactics, cognitive sciences and neuroscience for teaching’. In 2014, he was appointed a member of the Royal Society of Canada.