Examining the Effect of Bridging Analogies on Understanding the Concept of Force: Integrating Coherence and Knowledge-In-Pieces Perspectives on Conceptual Change

Abstract

Over the last few decades, two broad perspectives on conceptual change in science learning have emerged: coherence perspectives such as “theory theory” and fragmentation perspectives such as “knowledge-in-pieces”. Advocates of the coherence perspectives argue that an individual’s pre-instruction understanding is organized in coherent structures, with the challenge of instruction being to achieve restructuring toward more scientific understanding. In contrast, proponents of the fragmentation perspectives claim that pre-instruction knowledge consists of many disorganized elements such as phenomenological primitives, which emerge from daily experiences but can still be useful in scientific thinking. In this case, the challenge of instruction lies in guiding the learners toward organizing the activation of these elements rather than merely challenging misconceptions arising from an unscientific conceptual structure. A successful strategy advocated by both perspectives is the use of bridging analogies, although they have interpreted their effects on learners' thinking differently. Advocates of coherence perspectives see bridging analogies as targeting particularly problematic aspects of a learner’s pre-instruction conceptual structure and assume that the effect of this strategy on all learners is the same. Advocates of the fragmentation perspectives recognize the value of the strategy but point out individual differences that result from the activation of different knowledge elements.

In this study, an integrated theoretical perspective is adopted that accepts that learners activate many knowledge elements but also assumes that some elements play an important role in many learners’ thinking and can present particular challenges. This study aims to examine both similarities and differences in the knowledge elements that students activate while being taught about the concept of normal force, using bridging analogies. By identifying these knowledge elements, the study aims to discover if any elements continue to constrain students’ thinking, making it difficult for them to achieve the targeted conceptual change.

This study involved 10 participants divided equally between middle and high school. Individualized teaching interviews were conducted with each participant, focusing on teaching the concept of normal force using the bridging analogies sequence. These interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Then, the data was analyzed using microanalytic methods and microgenetic learning analysis (MLA) to identify the knowledge elements activated, characterize their role in student thinking, and determine whether some elements present particular learning challenges.

The findings of the study indicate that while there are individual differences in how students reason about the concept of normal force and how their thinking evolved in response to the bridging analogies sequence, there are also similarities in the knowledge elements they activate. It was found that the common knowledge elements pose an obstacle to students’ conceptual understanding. Specifically, these elements include core cognition concepts such as support, solidity, agency, and unsupported objects fall. These knowledge elements were acquired during infancy and continue to be activated even after physics instruction, making it difficult for students to grasp new scientific concepts, in particular, the concept of the normal force.

Ultimately, this research provides valuable insights into the process of conceptual change in science learning and contributes to our understanding of how students respond in similar but also distinct ways to bridging analogies, a popular conceptual change teaching strategy. This provides practical guidance to teachers regarding common learning challenges and alerts them to individual differences.