Challenging Students Ideas About Earth's Interior Structure
Using a Model-based, Conceptual Change Approach in a Large
Class Setting
David N. Steer
Department of Geology, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4101
[email protected]
Catharine C. Knight
Educational Foundations & Leadership, College of Education, University of
Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4208 [email protected]
Katharine D. Owens
Department of Curricular and Instructional Studies, University of Akron, Akron,
OH 44325-4205 [email protected]
David A. McConnell
Department of Geology, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4101
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
A model-based, conceptual change approach to teaching
was found to improve student understanding of earth
structure in a large (100+ student) inquiry-based, general
education setting. Results from paired pre- and
post-instruction sketches indicated that 19% (n = 18/97)
of the students began the class with naïve preconceptions
of the structure of the interior of the Earth. Many of the
remaining students (95%; n = 75/79) began the lesson
believing that the crust is several hundred kilometers
thick. Peer discussion and instruction appeared to be
effective in eliminating most naive preconceptions.
Analyses of post-instruction sketches indicated that 3%
(n = 3/97) of all students retained naïve preconceptions,
18% (n = 18/97) changed their views from naïve to the
"thick crust" view, 58% (n = 58/97) began to recognize
the relative scales of the boundaries with 30% (n = 28/97)
drawing the sketch with scaled boundaries. Many of the
students (65%; n = 76/117) could correctly answer
formative earth structure conceptual questions that were
asked five lessons after the earth structure lesson was
taught. A comparison of pre- and post-course conceptual
test question responses indicated that 13-20% more
students could correctly answer similar questions two
months after the model-based, conceptual change plate
tectonics lessons were taught.
INTRODUCTION
the outcome related to a concept. Students then share
their views and ideas with peers. This idea sharing is a
scaffolding technique to help students articulate their
beliefs about the topic at hand and then resolve conflicts
(Zeidler, 1997). At the university level, professors then
commonly step in to challenge students to resolve
conflicts that arise when their initial ideas are not
supported by actual data, expert models or other
information. Students learn how to extend and transfer
their knowledge through this process of raising and
answering questions about the application of concepts to
new situations.
Several conditions are needed for conceptual change
to occur and multiple outcomes are possible even when
these conditions are present. Conceptual change is
facilitated when students acknowledge confusion about
their current views, when the new framework appears
plausible, when students understand the clarified
framework, when the concept is fruitful in addressing
new situations and when they accept the data (Posner,
1982; Posner et al., 1982; Thorley and Stofflet, 1996; Chinn
and Brewer, 1998). These conditions all operate within
the students' conceptual ecologies that include their
existing knowledge, familiar analogies and metaphors,
and past experiences (Thorley and Sofflett, 1996; NRC,
2000). In response to new conceptual challenges,
students' understanding may not change if they ignore,
reject, are uncertain of, reinterpret or exclude new data
(Chinn and Brewer, 1998). Change is also less likely if
observations or situations appear consistent with their
existing conceptual framework (Zeidler, 1997).
Conceptual change instruction in the sciences is a well
known strategy for improving student understanding of
major scientific concepts and has been widely explored
in the areas of biology (Pfundt and Reindeers, 1991;
Gabel, 1993; Barrass, 1996), physics (Hestenes et al., 1992;
Dykstra et al., 1992; Pfister and Laws, 1995) and
chemistry (Bradley and Brand, 1985; Garnett and
Treagust, 1992; Schmidt et al., 2003). Conceptual change
in the learning of science involves the students' shifting
from naïve views, preconceptions or alternative
conceptions to accurate understandings driven by
strongly supported scientific theories and evidence.
Helping students shift from simplistic views to more
accurate views can be facilitated using hands-on concrete
models in conjunction with effective instructor support
to clarify students' cognitive understanding (Gilbert and
Ireton, 2003).
Stepans (2003) formalized a multi-stage Conceptual
Change Model (CCM - Figure 1) that provides a
framework to improve learning. Students first write
down their beliefs by making a prediction or formulating
The development of advanced mental images that
embody critical content, processes and underlying
concepts (conceptual models) of a topic are known to
play a significant role in the advancement of science
(Hesse, 1966; Harre, 1970). By definition, models are
groups of objects, symbols or images that represent some
part or aspect of another system and are central to all
learning (Gilbert, 1991; NRC, 2000; Gilbert and Ireton,
2003). Model building (from hands-on concrete to
advanced mental-based conceptual) is recognized as
essential to the learning of science (NRC, 1996; NRC,
2000). Hence, various types of models (e.g. metaphors,
physical, mathematical, computational) are currently
used to promote learning of science (Franco et al., 1999;
Gobert, 2000; Schwartz, 2002; Gilbert and Ireton, 2003).
The cognitive steps involved in a learner's building of
conceptual models have been a focus of research in
cognitive psychology for several decades (Harre, 1976;
Steer et al. - Changing Students’ Ideas About Earth’s Interior
415
MODELS AND MODEL BUILDING
Figure 1. Instructional schema used to promote conceptual change through in-class physical modeling. In
the Preconceptions phase, a) students face and discuss their preconceptions. Students create novice models,
are presented with conflicting data and make revisions in b) the Model Development Phase. At c) students
evaluate their models and begin to develop mental models that emphasize processes. Mental models are
validated at d) as students apply their mental models in new situations or to more advanced topics.
Johnson and Laird, 1989; Nagel, 1987; Kuhn and Lao,
1998).
In recent years, education research has focused on
model building as a conduit for learning science (Franco
et al., 1999; Clement, 2000; Gobert, 2000; Schwarz, 2002).
A significant amount of science teaching research has
been conducted that deals with evaluating cause and
effect models (Raghaven and Glaser, 1995; White and
Frederiksen, 1998), teaching and learning with concrete
models (Gilbert, 1991; Gilbert and Ireton, 2003) and the
revising of concrete models (Clement et al., 1989; Stewart
and Hafner, 1991). Many education scholars argue that
advanced mental models are constructed over time using
concrete activities that scaffold more complex student
learning, rather than via lecture or verbal description
(Guzzetti et al., 2000). Further, the core concepts
underlying a model must be repeatedly reinforced with
practice throughout the course to facilitate long-term
retention (Ericsson, 1996).
Clement (2000) proposed a framework for iterative,
constructive model development designed to enhance
learning that supports conceptual change in students
(Figure 1). In Clement's (2000) framework, students
should build a hands-on naïve model pertinent to a
concept and share their views on the construction and
validity of the model (Figure 1a). Supporting and/or
conflicting data are then presented that require students
to evaluate and revise their models. Guided model
revision becomes a primary self-assessment tool used to
promote learning. Models developed by experts are used
to validate (or discuss the limitations of) student models
416
(Figure 1b). The validation phase also involves the
meta-cognitive tasks of comparing and contrasting the
novice (i.e. students') models with those developed by
knowledgeable experts (Figure 1c). The knowledge
gained from the modeling process is thus more readily
transferred to a mental model that encompasses the
content and the processes of the concept. The cycle
continues as students apply these new and improved
mental models to other concepts in the course (Figure
1d).
Concrete physical models can be useful in a large
class setting where funds and physical facilities may be a
limiting factor. Concrete physical models are designed to
represent the appearance, function or an aspect of their
target and can be handled and manipulated by students
(Gilbert and Ireton, 2003). These simplified
representations of reality are used to support the
students' learning process by bridging ideas and
promoting understanding of relationships and processes
by means of a mental image constructed in long-term
memory for later retrieval (NRC, 1996). Polya's (1979)
systematic problem solving approach can be used to
guide and support hands-on model-building activities.
Polya asserts that students must: 1) Understand what
they are trying to model; 2) Devise a plan to create the
model; 3) Carry out their plan; and 4) Reflect on their
efforts by looking back at their initial ideas. Students use
and refine concrete models (in alignment with data and
research presented in class) that can help them develop
mental models that assist in their conceptual
understanding of process and relationships, rather than
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 4, September, 2005, p. 415-421
teaching assistants circulated around the room asking
students questions about their models. Students then
compared their completed physical models to their
naïve, initial drawings. An expert (USGS) model was
then shown to the students and explained. Students then
compared and contrasted their physical models (Figure
1c: Model Validation Phase) with that expert model.
Next, students again individually drew a circular,
cross-sectional diagram to scale. Finally students put
their ideas down in writing by explaining how their new
understanding might relate to additional topics such as
Table 1. Evaluation rubric for Earth cross section the structure of a tectonic plate (Figure 1d: Model
sketched (1 point each).
Extension Phase). The cycle was repeated as students
constructed and described clay models for transform,
memories that are mere images unconnected to the divergent and convergent plate boundaries.
underlying concepts.
Incomplete
understanding
and
alternative Data Collection and Evaluation - Students were
conceptions about Earth's structure and plate boundaries provided a handout displaying a circle and instructions
has been shown to hinder the learning of processes "Sketch a cross section (to scale) of the interior of the
associated with earthquakes (Barrow and Haskins, 1996) Earth and label the major boundaries." Pre- and
and other aspects of the theory of plate tectonics (Gobert, post-modeling sketches were evaluating by awarding
2000). A study of secondary school students by one point per criteria (Table 1). This rubric was
DeLaughter et al (1998) indicated that poor student developed by analyzing sketches from a previous
conceptual models of the interior of the earth are semester where some students displayed widely varying
apparent as early as 8th grade and we previously had views of the interior of the Earth (displayed layers with
observed similar poor student understanding of this varying geometries and comprised of various materials).
topic in our students. Consequently, we used the topic of Students with an alternative conception of the interior of
Earth's interior structure and plate boundaries to test the the earth scored 0 points (Figure 2 a). Students who
widely used CCM approach with concrete models recognized that the earth interior consists of multiple
(Figure 1) to ascertain if this approach improved concentric spheres scored 1 (Figure 2 b). Students who
drew only three or four concentric spheres (indicating
conceptual understanding.
that they held either the chemical or physical view)
scored 2 points, 3 points if boundaries were correctly
METHODS
labeled (Figures 2 c and 2d). When the student diagram
Instructional - Students who agreed to participate in this showed correctly labeled concentric spheres and
study (n=97) were enrolled in the general education indicated the crust was much thinner than other
course "Earth Science" at a large urban university boundaries (but > 1 mm from the outer circle), students
(23,000+ students). The study population closely scored 4 points (Figure 2 e). Students scored 5 points by
mirrored the demographics of the broader university in meeting all previous criteria and designating the line
that participants included 52% white males (n = 51) and marking the outer circle as the crust (Figure 2 f). As
47% females (n = 46). A total of 11% (n = 11) of the suggested by Libarkin et al (2005) and based on the
students in this study self identified as ethnic minority. responses from previous years, many of the students
As is common at many large universities, this Earth would be familiar with the idea that the interior of the
Science course had a large enrollment (160 per section) earth consisted of three to four spherically symmetric
and included no lab periods. The course was taught in a layers with different thicknesses (would score 2-3
tiered lecture hall with seats facing a central projection points). A few students could be expected to grasp the
screen. Students worked in assigned 4-person learning concept of scale by drawing the crust as a very thin layer
teams to complete a variety of active-learning activities compared to the other major layers of the Earth (would
related to the topics of discussion during every lesson in score 4-5).
Student diagrams were evaluated by two instructors
this course. This particular lesson occured after the first
exam block (of 8 lessons) and was the first in a series of (Steer and McConnell). Pre- and post-instruction
nine class meetings covering concepts associated with diagrams were photocopied, identifying pieces of
information (e.g. student name and section) were
plate tectonics.
In our class, students completed a pre-class reading removed and coded IDs were placed on each diagram.
assignment about Earth structure. Students then drew Each instructor then evaluated each diagram using the
cross-sectional diagrams of Earth's major mechanical same rubric (Table 1). Data for each rater were entered to
layers on a circle and then discussed their drawings in a spreadsheet with scores compared using a paired,
4-person groups (Figure 1a: Address Preconceptions two-tailed T-test to determine inter-rater reliability. Once
Phase). The instructor then conducted a short lecture reliability was established, student pre- and
presenting the major boundaries (e.g. crust-mantle) and post-instruction sketches from one instructor (Steer)
evidence derived from scientific investigations for the were compared using paired t-tests as a population and
existence of these boundaries. After the lecture, groups by group based on pre-instruction score (0-1: naïve view;
again discussed their initial drawings and created a 2-3: limited view; 4-5: acceptable view for college
physical model. They constructed scale models (1 mm = freshman non-science majors). Average score
1 km) of major Earth boundaries using a 6.4 m string, normalized gains were also computed for each
tape measure and markers to place at appropriate population ([post-pre]/[5-pre]) Student longer term
locations (Figure 1b: Model Development Phase). To retention was evaluated by analyzing student responses
support their model building process, instructors and on in-class conceptual questions, exams and by
Boundaries appear to be concentric spheres (circles).
Sketch displays crust, mantle, core (as a unit or inner and
outer core separately).
Boundaries are correctly labeled.
Drawing appears to demonstrate some differences in scale
(e.g. Crust is thinner than other layers but > 1 mm from
circle edge).
Crust is nearly to scale (use the circle already drawn on the
paper or 1 mm or less from edge).
Steer et al. - Changing Students’ Ideas About Earth’s Interior
417
Figure 2. Scanned and manually traced examples evaluated student drawings of interior structure of the
earth (pre-instruction). a) score of 0 (misconception or no conceptual framework), b) score of 1 (naïve view), c)
score of 2 (multiple concentric layers), d) score of 3 (labeled multiple concentric layers), e) score of 4 (multiple
concentric layers with some scale for crust) and f) score of 5 (advanced level of entry-level understanding).
comparing pre- and post-test scores (post test at the end not adjusted. Pre- and post-instruction scores were
of the semester) for an interior structure of the earth indistinguishable between raters when pair-wise
question from the Geoscience Concept Inventory compared (p = 0.5 for both data sets).
(Libarkin and Anderson, in press).
Evidence of Learning - The use of the conceptual
change approach using simple models appeared to
RESULTS
enhance learning in a large class (160+ students) setting.
Inter-rater Reliability - Though there were some scoring There were no statistically significant gender differences
discrepancies between raters, there were no statistically in pre-instruction scores (p = 0.80). Qualitatively, a
significant differences in scores between evaluators in review of the initial student diagrams indicated that the
this study. The initial screen of these data indicated that majority (81%, n=79/97) were able to draw a
five (four pre- and one post-instruction) drawings had rudimentary schematic of the Earth (drawing showed
scores that varied by 2 points. Each of these drawings concentric spheres with major boundaries) prior to
was separately reviewed. In two cases, one rater (Steer) instruction (scored 2 or higher). Of those students with
scored 0 points for diagrams that displayed lines the concentric view, most (95%, n= 75/79) began the class
radiating outward from the center of the earth. By strict with the preconception that the crust of the Earth was
application of the rubric, McConnell argued that there several 100's of km thick based on their drawings, thus
were multiple concentric spheres embedded in the scoring 3 or 4 points (Figure 2 d and e). A significant
drawing and awarded 2 points. Two other discrepancies proportion of the students (19%, n=18/97) began the
dealt with differences in interpretation of "differences in class with widely varying preconceptions of the
scale." In both cases, McConnell argued that the structure of the interior of the Earth ( Figure 2a and b: e.g.
drawings with a very small core (inner and outer horizontal or vertical layers, concentric ovals, all molten
combined) were incorrectly scaled. The single interior). Only four students appeared to hold the
post-instruction discrepancy was a scoring error. Scores desired conceptual view before instruction (scored 5
for the diagrams that varied by 2 points were adjusted points).
Student scores on sketches of the interior of the earth
accordingly (up or down by 1 point) to better reflect the
scoring intent of the rubric. There were eight other pre- changed significantly (Figure 3) after building and
and seventeen other post-instruction scores (out of 97) analyzing the simple scale model of the interior structure
that varied by one point. There were no obvious trends to of the Earth. There were no statistically significant
these discrepancies and scores for these diagrams were gender differences post-instruction scores (p = 0.30).
418
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 4, September, 2005, p. 415-421
Figure 3. Distribution of student scores for sketches
of the interior of the earth (gray pre-and black
post-instruction).
Overall, student scores on the sketches increased from
2.6 +/- 1.2 on the pre-test to 4.0 +/- 1.0 on the post-test for
an overall normalized gain of 58% (n=97; p < 0.000001).
These results indicate that the typical student moved
from a basic view of the interior of the Earth (e.g. three or
four correctly labeled, concentric spheres) to a view that
included some recognition that scale was important to
include in their view ( Figure 2e). Students who had
alternative conceptions or very limited conceptual
frameworks about the Earth's interior (scored 0-1 on
pre-test) experienced the greatest change. These 18
students increased their average score from 0.8 +/- 0.4 to
3.3 +/- 1.3 for a normalized gain of 59% (p < 0.000001).
Two of these students displayed no change and one
student scored lower on the post-instruction diagram.
Students who had rudimentary conceptual frameworks
about the Earth's interior (scored 2-3 on pre-test) also
improved their conceptual framework as evidenced by a
normalized gain of 62% (from 2.6 +/- 0.5 to 4.1 +/- 0.8; n
= 58; p < 0.000001). Students who scored the highest (4
and 5 points; n = 21) on the pre-test did not realize
statistically significant normalized gains (p > 0.05).
DISCUSSION
A model-based conceptual change approach did appear
to change student views concerning the interior structure
of the earth. Most student alternative conceptions
(students scoring 0 or 1 on the initial diagram) appeared
to be quickly addressed as students discussed their
sketches with one another during the "Address
Preconceptions Phase" ( Figure 1a). During this
discussion period, students with alternative conceptions
quickly realized that their simple views were not
adequate. These team discussions were validated when
students constructed a physical model during the
"Model Development Phase' ( Figure 1 b) and during the
lecture portion of the class when an expert model was
presented and discussed. Even after the lecture, most
groups (90%; 36/40 groups) continued to hold their
preconception about the thickness of the crust as
evidenced by the location of the crust-mantle marker on
their physical string models. It was not until the
instructor and teaching assistant suggested that
students' compare the scale of their crust to that of the
expert model projected on a screen did students
recognize that their models for the crustal boundary
Steer et al. - Changing Students’ Ideas About Earth’s Interior
were incorrect. By completion of the "Model Validation
phase" ( Figure 1 c), students holding simplistic views
evolved to the point the majority (16/18) could sketch
and label a geometrically acceptable model with 10 of 18
students incorporating scale into their diagrams. As
suggested could happen by Chinn and Brewer (1998),
several students (n =3) appeared to have ignored,
rejected or excluded the data as they continued to draw
inadequate representations (scored 0 or 1) for the interior
of the earth.
For students with a more advanced, yet still limited,
view of the interior of the earth (scoring 2 or 3 on
pre-instruction diagrams) progress was manifested in an
improved understanding of the scale of the crust
compared to the other major layers. However, on the
post-instruction diagram, only 30% of these students
(17/58) correctly drew the crust to scale (scored 5). The
actions of the remaining students (n = 41/58) illustrated
that many students reinterpreted the data (Chinn and
Brewer, 1998) or made only peripheral changes to better
fit their existing conceptual ecologies (Zeidler, 1997).
Improvement for students with the more accurate
conceptual model of the earth (scored 4 or 5 on pre-test)
occurred as more students appropriately scaled the
thickness of the crust (10 compared to 5/21 initially).
Such data suggest that students with various conceptual
starting points can improve their level of understanding
during a class, but did they retain that improved view
beyond the immediate class?
The topic of scale of Earth boundaries was extended (
Figure 1d) as students probed their views on the nature
of the lithosphere and kinematics of plate boundaries. In
learning teams of four, students built three-dimensional
clay models of the lithosphere for divergent, convergent
and transform plate boundaries. These activities were
integrated with other active learning exercises (concept
maps, concept test questions, cross sections) to help them
build accurate mental models of these complex, abstract
systems. Clay models were ideal for student
investigations because the models could be adjusted and
numerous features can be placed directly on the models
(e.g. earthquake foci, trench locations, mountains,
volcanoes). Such modeling required students to translate
primarily two-dimensional information that is presented
as diagrams or 2-D maps in textbooks into actual
three-dimensional models. The scale of the thickness of
the crust compared that of a tectonic plate and the upper
mantle was continually reinforced during these
exercises.
Formative and summative evaluations indicated
that students retained some portion of their improved
conceptual models of the interior of the Earth through
the end of the course. At the conclusion of the eight
lesson plate tectonics block, 65% (76/117) of the students
correctly answered the following conceptual question
(McConnell et al., 2003) in class:
"Which is the best analogy? The thickness of an egg shell
is approximately 1-2% of the radius of an egg. This is
analogous to the thickness of the _______ relative to the
radius of Earth.
a. oceanic crust
c. Lithosphere
b. continental crust
d. mantle."
A comparison of results from pre- and post-test results
from the Geosciences Concept Inventory (see GCI at
http://www-msc.bhsu.edu/eps/TEST%20CONSTRUC
419
TION%20DEC.doc) indicated that 44% (48 of 109)
science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v.
correctly answered a structure of the Earth question
35, p. 623-654.
compared to 31% (40 of 130) on the pre test (non-paired Clement, J., Brown, D. and Zeitsman, A., 1989, Not all
results). Likewise, on a question concerning the physical
preconceptions
are
misconceptions:
finding
location of tectonic plates, 46% (50/109) correctly
'anchoring conceptions' for grounding instruction on
responded on the post-test compared to 26% on the
students' intuitions, International Journal of Science
pre-test (non-paired results). These data and
Education, v. 11, p. 554-565.
observations support the contention that it is very Clement J., 2000, Model based learning as a key research
difficult to affect conceptual change in students (Posner,
area for science education, International Journal of
1982; Posner et al., 1982; Thorley and Stofflet, 1996;
Science Education, v. 22, p. 1041-1053.
Zeidler, 1997), but that repeated exposure to a concept, in DeLaughter, J.E., Bain, K.R., Stein, C.A. and Stein, S.,
concert with instructor guidance, can effect change.
1998, Preconceptions abound among students in an
introductory earth science course, EOS, v. 79, p.
429-432.
SUMMARY
Dykstra, D.I, 1992, Studying conceptual change in
learning physics, Science Education, v. 76, p. 615-652.
Earth structure is a key element in the guiding paradigm
of plate tectonics that is taught in nearly every Ericsson, K.A., 1996. The Role of Deliberate Practice in
the Acquisition of Expert Performance, Psych. Rev.,
introductory geology course in the nation. It is important
100 (3), 363-406.
for all students to understand earth structure because it
influences how non-science majors view processes that Franco, H., Barros, H.L., Colinvaux, D., Krapas, S.,
Queiroz, G. and Alves, F., 1999, From scientists' and
shape the world in which they live and it lays the
inventors' minds to some scientific and technological
foundation for geology majors to continue their study of
products: relationships between theories, models,
the Earth. Pictorial models are generally used to teach
mental models and conceptions, International
plate tectonics because the processes embodied therein
Journal of Science Education, v. 21, p. 277-291.
are largely abstract and cannot be directly observed in
their entirety. This research has begun to show that Gabel, D.L., 1993, Handbook of Research on Science
Teaching and Learning Project, NSTA Press,
students bring naïve preconceptions to the classrooms
Washington, DC., 598 p.
that interfere with their science learning. This research
has also shown that student alternative conceptions Garnett, P.J. and Treagust, D.F., 1992, Conceptual
Difficulties Experienced by Senior High School
about earth structure are difficult to modify. The
Students of Electrochemistry: Electrochemical
conceptual change approach coupled with physical
(Galvanic) and Electrolytic Cells, Journal of Research
modeling of earth structure and other related topics
in Science Education, v. 29, p. 1079-1099.
appears to facilitate learning of the content,
relationships, and processes of plate tectonics. As Gilbert, S.W., 1991, Model Building and Definition of
Science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v.
students compared, contrasted and revised their simple
28, p. 73-79.
physical models, they appeared to learn how to create
more advanced mental models of earth structure. More Gilbert, S.W. and Ireton S.W., 2003. Understanding
Models in Earth and Space Science, NSTA Press,
research is needed to determine the extent to which
Arlington, VA., 124 p.
physical model building overcomes preconceptions and
promotes development of appropriate advanced mental Gobert, J.D., 2000, A typology of causal models for plate
tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to
models in students. Such research will expand the
understanding, International Journal of Science
database of known preconceptions that hinder learning,
Education, v. 22, p. 937-977.
to determine the efficacy of having students construct
physical models in large classroom settings, and to Guzzetti, B.J., 2000, Learning Counter-Intuitive Science
Concepts: What Have We Learned from Over a
document those modeling activities that best facilitate
Decade of Research?, Reading and Writing
learning of plate tectonics.
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, v. 16,
p. 89-98.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Harre, R., 1970, The principles of scientific thinking,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 324 p.
The authors wish to thank reviewers whose helpful
comments significantly improved this manuscript. This Hesse, M.B., 1966, Models and Analogies in Science,
University of Norte Dame Press, Norte Dame, IN,
research was funded in part by the National Science
184 p.
Foundation CCLI (A&I) grant #0087894.
Hestenes, D. Wells, M. and Swackhamer, G., 1992, Force
concept inventory, Physics Teacher, v. 30, p. 141-158.
REFERENCES
Johnson-Laird, P.N., 1989, Reasoning by Model: The
Case of Multiple Quantification, Psychological
Barrass, Robert, 1996, Locusts for student-centered
Review, v. 96, p. 658-673.
learning, Journal of Biological Learning, v. 30, p.
Kuhn, D. and Lao, J., 1998, Contemplation and
22-26.
Conceptual Change: Integrating Perspectives from
Barrow, L. and Haskins, S., 1996, Earthquake knowledge
Social and Cognitive Psychology, Dev. Rev., v. 18, p.
and experiences of introductory geology students,
125-154.
Journal of College Science Teaching, v. 26, p.
Libarkin, J.C., Anderson, S.W., Science, J.D., Beilfuss, M.
143-146.
and Boone, W., 2005, Qualitative analysis of college
Bradley, J.D. and Brand, M., 1985, Stamping Out
students' ideas about the Earth: Interviews and
Misconceptions, Journal of Chemical Education, v.
open-ended questioners, Journal of Geoscience
62, p. 318.
Education, v. 53, p. 17-26.
Chinn, C.A. and Brewer, W.F., 1998, An empirical test of
a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in
420
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 4, September, 2005, p. 415-421
Libarkin, J.C. and Anderson, S.W., 2005, Assessment of
learning in entry-level Geoscience courses: Results
from the Geosciences Concept Inventory, Journal of
Geoscience Edducation, v. 53, p. 394-401.
McConnell, D., Steer, D., Owens, K., Borowski, W., Dick,
J., Knott, J., Konigsberg, A., Malone, M., McGrew, H.,
and Van Horn, S., 2003, Using conceptests in
multiple introductory courses, GSA Abstracts with
Programs, v. 34, p. 441.
National Research Council, 1996, National Science
Education Standards, National Academy Press,
Washington D.C., 262 p.
National Research Council, 2000, How People Learn:
Brain, Mind, Experience and School, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 374 p.
Pfister, H. and Laws, P., 1995, Physics Teacher, v. 33, p.
214-220.
Pfundt, H. and Reindeers, d., 1991, Students' Alternative
Frameworks and Science Education, 3rd ed., Institut
fuer die Paedagogik der Naturwissenschaften, Keil,
Germany, 317 p.
Polya, G., 1979, More in guessing and proving, Two-year
College Mathematics Journal, v. 10, p. 255-258.
Posner, G.J., 1982, A Cognitive Science Conception of
Curriculum and Instruction, Journal of Curricular
Studies, v. 14, p. 343-351.
Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W. and Gertzon,
W.A., 1982, Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change,
Science Education, v. 66, p. 211-217.
Raghaven, K. and Glaser, R., 1995, Model-based analysis
and reasoning in science: The MARS curriculum,
Science Education, v. 79, p. 37-61.
Schmidt, H., Baumgartner, T. and Eybe, H., 2003,
Changing Ideas about the Periodic Table of Elements
and Students' Alternative Concepts of Isotopes and
Allotropes, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
v. 40, p. 257-277.
Schwartz, C.V., 2002, Using model-centered science
instruction to foster students' epistemologies in
learning with models, presented at Model-Centered
Science Instruction, AERA, New Orleans, LA, 13 p.
Stepans, J., 2003, Targeting Students' Science
Misconceptions: Physical Science Concepts Using
the Conceptual Change Model, Showboard Inc.,
Tampa, FL, 278 p.
Stewart, J. and Hafner, R., 1991, Extending the
Conception of "Problem" in Problem-Solving
Research, Science Education, v. 75,p. 105-120.
Thorley, R.N. and Stofflet, R.T., 1996, Representation of
the Conceptual Change Model in science teacher
education, Science Education, v. 80, p. 317-339.
White, B. Y. and Frederiksen, J. R., 1998, Inquiry,
Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science
Accessible to All Students, Cognition and
Instruction, v. 16, p. 3-118.
Zeidler, D.L., 1997, The central role of fallacious thinking
in science education, Science Education, v. 81, p.
483-496.
Steer et al. - Changing Students’ Ideas About Earth’s Interior
421
Membership Application or Renewal Form
Name: __________________________
Mailing Address: __________________________________
________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ State: ________
___College/University Professor @ ______________
___Precollege Teacher @ _____________________
___Other @ ________________________________
Checks, MasterCard, or VISA (US funds
only) are payable to:National Association of
Geoscience Teachers. Mail to: NAGT, PO
Box 5443, Bellingham, WA 98227-5443
Phone:
__________________________
Fax: ____________________
Email: ___________________
Zip: _____________________
Membership
Regular USA
Outside USA
Student–USA
Student–outside USA
Retired NAGT member
Library Subscriptions
Regular USA
Outside USA
_______New
Rates (US funds)
$35 _____
$47 _____
$20 _____
$32 _____
$30 _____
$55 _____
$67 _____
_______Renewal
Check
q Credit card:
MC/VISA (circle one)
Number: ________________________
Signature: __________________________ Exp. Date
__________________________
q
The Journal and membership year runs from January to December. Subscriptions received after
June 1 will begin receiving the Journal in January of the following year. Back issues are
available for $15 (foreign $18) each.
*To qualify for student rate, indicate and obtain verification from a NAGT member:
___Undergraduate
___Graduate
____________________________________
Signature of NAGT member
School