Domain of validity framework: a new instructional theory for addressing students’ preconceptions in science and engineering

References

• Anderson (Ed.), L. W., Krathwohl (Ed.), D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., … Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Astolfi, J.-P. (2006). L’erreur, un outil pour enseigner 7e édition. ESF éditeur.
   Google Scholar
• Bachelard, G. (1938). La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Vrin.
   Google Scholar
• Baillie, C., & Johnson, A. (2008). A threshold model for attitudes in first year engineering students. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines (pp. 143–154). Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Batzli, J. M., Knight, J. K., Hartley, L. M., Maskiewicz, A. C., Desy, E. A., & Momsen, J. (2016). Crossing the threshold: Bringing biological variation to the foreground. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), es9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0221
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brousseau, G. (1983). Les obstacles épistémologiques et les problèmes en mathématiques. Recherches En Didactique Des Mathématiques, 4(2), 165-198.
   Google Scholar
• Brousseau, G. (1989a). Les obstacles épistémologiques et la didactique des mathématiques. In N. Bednarz & C. Garnier (Eds.), Construction Des Savoirs, Obstacles Et Conflits (pp. 41–63). Editions Agence d’ARC.
   Google Scholar
• Brousseau, G. (1989b). Obstacles épistémologiques, conflicts socio-cognitifs et ingéniérie didactique. (N. Bednarz & C. Garnier, Eds). Université de Québec.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, D. E. (2014). Students’ Conceptions as Dynamically Emergent Structures. Science and Education, 23(7), 1463–1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9655-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1987). Overcoming Misconceptions in Mechanics: A Comparison of Two Example-Based Teaching Strategies. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Caravita, S., & Halldén, O. (1994). Re-framing the problem of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90020-5
   Google Scholar
• Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive Science and Science Education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123–1130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (2005). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074–1079. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes. In S. Vosniadou (Ed..), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd, pp. 49–70). Routledge Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203154472.ch3
   Google Scholar
• Clement, J. (1991). Non-formal reasoning in experts and science students: The use of analogies, extreme cases, and physical intuition. In J. Voss, D. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 345–362). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clement, J., Brown, D. E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 554–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Closset, J.-L. (1983). Le raisonnement séquentiel en électrocinétique. Bulletin De l’Union Des Physiciens, 657, 81–102.
   Google Scholar
• Closset, J.-L. (1992). Raisonnements en électricité et en hydrodynamique. Aster, 14(4), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/9089
   Google Scholar
• Cokelez, A., & Dumon, A. (2005). Atom and molecule: Upper secondary school French students’ representations in long-term memory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(3), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90005G
   Google Scholar
• Cousin, G. (2006a). An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, 17, 4–5. https://doi.org/10.11120/plan.2006.00170004
   Google Scholar
• Cousin, G. (2006b). Threshold concepts, troublesome knowledge and emotional capital. In J. Meyer and R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 134–147). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, D. (2010). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in curriculum design (Principles in Patterns (PiP) Project Report). University of Strathclyde. https://www.principlesinpatterns.ac.uk/Portals/70/pip%20document%20library/Publications/TacitKnowledge.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Demirci, N., & Çirkinoglu, A. (2004). Determining students’ preconceptions/misconceptions in electricity and magnetism. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 1(2), 51–54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321747065_Determining_Students'_PreconceptionsMisconceptions_in_Electricity_and_Magnetism
   Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.1159/000342945
   Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A. (2014). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In K. Sawyer (Ed..), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, second edition (pp. 88–108).  Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.007
   Google Scholar
• Drechsler, M., & Schmidt, H.-J. (2005). Textbooks’ and teachers’ understanding of acid-base models used in chemistry teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90002B
   Google Scholar
• 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(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267808559857
   Google Scholar
• Duit, R., Treagust, D. F., & Widodo, A. (2013). Teaching science for conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed..), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 485–503). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203154472.ch25
   Google Scholar
• Duval, R. (1993). Registres de représentation sémiotique et fonctionnement cognitif de la pensée. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, Vol. 5, pp. 37–65. Estrasburgo.
   Google Scholar
• Fabre, M. (1995). Bachelard éducateur. Presses universitaires de France (PUF).
   Google Scholar
• Fetherstonhaugh, T., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Students’ understanding of light and its properties: Teaching to engender conceptual change. Science Education, 76(6), 653–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fransella, F. (2003). International handbook of personal construct psychology (F. Fransella, Ed..). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013370
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660412
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559905
   Google Scholar
• Givry, D., & Tiberghien, A. (2012). Studying students’ learning processes used during physics teaching sequence about gas with networks of ideas and their domain of applicability. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.566289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halloun, I. A. (2006). Modeling theory in science education.. Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2140-2
   Google Scholar
• Halloun, I. A. (2011). From modeling schemata to the profiling schema: Modeling across the curricula for profile shaping education. In Khin & Saleh (Eds.), Models and Modeling (pp. 77–96). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0449-7_4
   Google Scholar
• Hammer, D. (1996, January). Misconceptions or P-Prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0502_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 68(S1), S52–S59. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19520
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Information Age Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1158
   Google Scholar
• Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P. O. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92(1), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education, 15(2), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/15/2/308
   Google Scholar
• Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440–454. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of ‘the atom’. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, G. A. (2005). A brief introduction to personal construct theory. In F. Fransella (Ed.), International handbook of personal construct psychology (pp. 3–20). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013370.ch1
   Google Scholar
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Fourth ed.). University of Chicago press. 50th anniversary.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. (1978). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research communities. In J. Worrall & G. Currie (Eds.), The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1, pp. 8–101). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Land, R., Cousin, G., Meyer, J. H. F., & Davies, P. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): Implications for course design and evaluation. Improving Student Learning Diversity and Inclusivity, 49(3), 53–64. https://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/ISL04-pp53-64-Land-et-al.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Land, R., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203966273
   Google Scholar
• Martinand, J.-L. (1995). La référence et l’obstacle. Perspectives documentaires en éducation, 34, 7–22. http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/publications/edition-electronique/perspectives-documentaires/RP034-1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, L. C. (2005). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned: Closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On, 4(1), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Baillie, C. (2010). Threshold concepts and transformational learning. Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Michelet, S., Adam, J.-M., & Luengo, V. (2007). Adaptive learning scenarios for detection of misconceptions about electricity and remediation. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2(1), 1–5. https://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jet/article/view/85/55
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9457
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012a). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.  National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012b). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering.  National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13362
   Google Scholar
• Novak, J. D. (1977). A theory of education. Cornell University.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00414279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000031255.92943.6d
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, D. (1997). The effect of context on students’ reasoning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 19(6), 681–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. (1999). The Many Faces of Constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00994_9.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In J. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 33–47). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203966273
   Google Scholar
• Peşman, H., & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (Ed.) (1967). Logique et connaissance scientifique. In Encyclopédie de la Pléiade (Vol. 22, pp. 1–1376). Gallimard.
   Google Scholar
• Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063002167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Quinlan, K. M., Edwards, D. J., Lubansky, A., Baillie, C., Trevitt, C., Stamboulis, A., & Fill, J. (2012). Exploring engineering thresholds at level 4 : What happens in the Oxford tutorial ? In M. Harriso (Ed.), Enhancing engineering higher education: Outputs of the national HE STEM programme (pp. 89–94). Royal Academy of Engineering.
   Google Scholar
• Quinlan, K. M., Male, S. C., Baillie, C. A., Stamboulis, A., Fill, J., & Jaffer, Z. (2013). Methodological challenges in researching threshold concepts: A comparative analysis of three projects. Higher Education, 66(5), 585–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9623-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Durkin, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/a001602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozier, S. (1988). Le raisonnement linéaire causal en thermodynamique classique élémentaire. Université Paris VII.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, P. (Producer), Schneps, M. H., & Woll, S. (Eds.) (1989). A private universe : Misconceptions that block learning [VHS video produced by Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution : Project STAR]. Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Retrieved from https://www.learner.org/series/a-private-universe/1-a-private-universe/
   Google Scholar
• Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2402_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartzman, L. (2010). Transcending disciplinary boundaries: A proposed theoretical foundation for threshold concepts. In J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational Learning (pp. 21–44). Brill | Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460912078_003
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, J. (1983). Learning about energy: How pupils think in two domains. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528830050105
   Google Scholar
• Sommeillier, R., & Robert, F. (2016). Les préconceptions en théorie des circuits électriques au niveau universitaire : Développement d’une stratégie de dépassement [Paper presentation]. 9ème Rencontre de l’ARDiST. Lens, France. https://ardist2016lens.sciencesconf.org/82354
   Google Scholar
• Sommeillier, R., & Robert, F. (2017). Misconceptions in electricity at university level: Development of an overcoming teaching strategy. Dublin City University.
   Google Scholar
• Sommeillier, R., & Robert, F. (2020). Understanding electrical circuit theory at university level: Development of an efficient preconception-centered teaching strategy. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. West & L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change (pp.211-231). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S. (2001). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner’s conceptions: A typology of learning impediments. Educational Studies, 27(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690120050392
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89(1), 94–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S. (2008). Conceptual resources for learning science: Issues of transience and grain-size in cognition and cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1027–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701485082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theunissen, R., Sommeillier, R., & Robert, F. (2020). Methodological preconceptions and DoV framework : Analysis of students’ errors in electrical circuit solving. 11e Rencontres Scientifiques de l’ARDiST. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<387::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergnaud, G. (1994). Le rôle de l’enseignant à la lumière des concepts de schème et de champ conceptuel. In M. Artigue, R. Gras, C. Laborde, & P. Tavignot (Eds.), Vingt Ans de Didactique Des Mathématiques En France (pp. 177–191). La Pensée Sauvage.
   Google Scholar
• Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1159/000202727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528790010209
   Google Scholar
• Viennot, L. (1985). Analyzing students’ reasoning: Tendencies in interpretation. American Journal of Physics, 53(5), 432–436. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S. (2006). The conceptual change approach in the learning and teaching mathematics: An introduction. Proceedings, 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Prague, 1, 155–159.
   Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: Preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.) Second international handbook of science education (pp. 119–130). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_10
   Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S., Baltas, A., & Vamvakoussi, X. (2007). Re-framing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction. Emerald Group Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Wenning, C. J. (2009). Dealing more effectively with alternative conceptions in science. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 5(1), 11–19. http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/dealing_alt_con.pdf
   Google Scholar
• White, R., & Gunstone, R. (2014). Probing understanding. The Falmer Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203761342
   Google Scholar
• Zembylas, M. (2005, January). Three perspectives on linking the cognitive and the emotional in science learning: Conceptual change, socio-constructivism and poststructuralism. Studies in Science Education, 41(1), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260508560215
   Google Scholar