PEER COLLABORATION AND CONCEPTUAL GROWTH IN PHYSICS - TASK INFLUENCESON CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDING OF HEATING AND COOLING

Citation
C. Howe et al., PEER COLLABORATION AND CONCEPTUAL GROWTH IN PHYSICS - TASK INFLUENCESON CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDING OF HEATING AND COOLING, Cognition and instruction, 13(4), 1995, pp. 483-503
Citations number
34
Categorie Soggetti
Psychology, Educational","Psychology, Experimental
Journal title
ISSN journal
07370008
Volume
13
Issue
4
Year of publication
1995
Pages
483 - 503
Database
ISI
SICI code
0737-0008(1995)13:4<483:PCACGI>2.0.ZU;2-1
Abstract
Previous research has shown that peer collaboration can facilitate con ceptual change in physics, as long as learners approach the exercise w ith differing conceptions about the issue at stake. Positive results h ave been obtained across a wide age range, with a broad selection of t opics, and with contrasting modes of task presentation. Despite this, there are indications that differing conceptions is not the only varia ble significant to outcome and that task design may also be relevant. In this article, we report a study and consider this possibility in th e context of 8- to 12-year-olds' conceptions of heating and cooling. T asks were varied according to (a) whether their problem materials were or were not structured to permit critical testing and (b) whether the y did or did not incorporate instructions to generate summary rules. T he results showed the general superiority of tasks that both facilitat ed critical testing and required rules. The features did not operate a dditively, however, for there were indications that designs that deplo yed one feature in isolation were less helpful than designs that deplo yed none. Detailed analysis of the on-task dialogue has clarified why critical testing and rule generation were powerful in combination but not separately, showing that together the two features ensured progres s at the level of theory and not merely empirical regularity. This not only is in complete contrast to the other designs but also helps to e xplain why the results were similar yet subtly different from those ob tained in a comparable study whose topic area was floating and sinking .