This article examines a remarkable learning event where a high school class developed, on its own, a stable, normative view of thermal equilibration. The event is also notable because the intuitive ideas that students bootstrapped into their model of equilibration have been thoroughly documented in prior research. Therefore, the process of changing prior conceptions is well delineated. The main point of the article is to review what happened in this microcosm of learning from multiple perspectives to examine how well each perspective can account for the learning that took place. We use three competing views of conceptual change: Knowledge in Pieces, the Theory Theory, and the Ontological View. We argue that Knowledge in Pieces provides a more detailed and more adequate account of the learning that took place, whereas that learning contradicts core commitments of the Theory Theory and of the Ontological View.

1.
Brown, D.E. (1994). Facilitating conceptual change using analogies and explanatory models. International Journal of Science Education,16, 201-214. doi:10.1080/0950069940160208
2.
Brown, D.E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237-261. doi:10.1007/BF00118013
3.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
Chi, M.T.H. (1992). Conceptual change across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In F. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129-160). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
7.
Chi, M.T.H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1
8.
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.), Internationalhandbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 49-70). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203154472.ch3
9.
Chi, M.T.H., & Slotta, J.D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 249-260. doi:10.1080/07370008.1985.9649011
10.
Clark, D.B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students' understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 467-563. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2404_3
11.
Clark, D., D'Angelo, C., & Schleigh, S. (2011). Comparison of students' knowledge structure coherence and understanding of force in the Philippines, Turkey, China, Mexico, and the United States. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 207-261. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.508028
12.
Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66-70. doi:10.1119/1.12989
13.
diSessa, A.A. (1980). Momentum flow as an alternative perspective in elementary mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48, 365-369. doi:10.1119/1.12106
14.
diSessa, A.A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6, 37-75. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0601_2
15.
diSessa, A.A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
diSessa, A.A. (1993a). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225. doi: 10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
17.
diSessa, A.A. (1993b). Ontologies in pieces: Response to Chi and Slotta. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 272-280.
18.
diSessa, A.A. (2013). A bird's eye view of “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Internationalhandbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 31-48). New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
diSessa, A.A. (2014a). The construction of causal schemes: Learning mechanisms at the knowledge level. Cognitive Science, 38, 795-850. doi:10.1111/cogs.12131
20.
diSessa, A.A. (2014b). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 88-108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816833.017
21.
diSessa, A.A. (2014c). An epistemological perspective on misinformation. In D.N. Rapp & J.L.G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 279-296). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
diSessa, A.A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence vs. fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843-900. doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.05.003
23.
diSessa, A.A., & Sherin, B. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1155-1191. doi:10.1080/0950069980201002
24.
diSessa, A.A., Sherin, B., & Levin, M. (2016). Knowledge analysis: An introduction. In A. diSessa, M. Levin, & N. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences (pp. 30-71). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
Driver, R. (1989). Students' conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481-490. doi:10.1080/0950069890110501
26.
Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27.
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. (1994). The theory theory. In L.A. Hirschfeld & S.A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257-293). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Gupta, A., Elby, A., & Conlin, L. (2014). How substance-based ontologies for gravity can be productive: A case study. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10, 010113. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.010113
29.
Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners' ontologies in physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 285-321. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.491751
30.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of personal epistemology. In B.K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31.
Hirschfield, L., & Gelman, S. (1994). Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children's naive thinking about the biological world. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
33.
Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2, 5-61.
34.
Izsák, A. (2000). Inscribing the winch: Mechanisms by which students develop knowledge structures for representing the physical world with algebra. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 31-74. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0901_4
35.
Kapon, S., & diSessa, A.A. (2012). Reasoning through instructional analogies. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 261-310. doi:10.1080/07370008.2012.689385
36.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Kuhn, T.S. (1977). Concepts of cause in the development of physics. In T.S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 21-30). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Levrini, O., & diSessa, A.A. (2008). How students learn from multiple contexts and definitions: Proper time as a coordination class. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 4, 010107. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010107
39.
Linn, M.C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, and peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-323). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41.
Nemirovsky, R. (2002). On ways of symbolizing: The case of Laura and the velocity sign. Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 13, 389-422. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61189-6_10
42.
Nersessian, N. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3-44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
43.
Parnafes, O. (2007). What does “fast” mean? Understanding the physical world through computational representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 415-450. doi:10.1080/10508400701413443
44.
Parnafes, O., & diSessa, A.A. (2013). Microgenetic learning analysis: A methodology for studying knowledge in transition. Human Development, 56, 5-37. doi:10.1159/000342945
45.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1988). Bibliography: Students' alternative frameworks and science education (2nd ed.). Kiel: IPN.
46.
Rosebery, A.S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 322-357. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.491752
47.
Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. (1997). Children's thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21, 147-177. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2102_2
48.
Siegler, R.S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46, 606-620. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.6.606
49.
Smith, J.P., diSessa, A.A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
50.
Vosniadou, S. (Ed.) (2013). International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
51.
Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science & Education, 23, 1427-1445. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9640-3
52.
Wellman, H.M., & Gelman, S.A. (1998). Knowledge acquisition in foundational domains. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed.). Vol. 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 523-573). New York, NY: Wiley.
53.
White, B. (1993). Intermediate causal models: A missing link for successful science education? In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. Vol. 4 (pp. 177-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54.
Wiser, M. (1995). Use of history of science to understand and remedy students' misconceptions about heat and temperature. In D. Perkins, J. Schwartz, M. West, & M. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 23-38). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
55.
Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental Models (pp. 267-297). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56.
Wiser, M., & Smith, C. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205-237). New York, NY: Routledge.
57.
Wiser, M., & Smith, C. (2016). How is conceptual change possible? Insights from science education. In D. Barner & A. Baron (Eds.), Core knowledge and conceptual change (pp. 29-52). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190467630.003.0003
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.