MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592094823 · doi:10.1002/tea.21235

Experimental evidence of the superiority of the prevalence model of conceptual change over the classical models and repetition

2015· article· en· W1592094823 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Science Teaching · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptual changeRepetition (rhetorical device)CognitionPsychologyTeaching methodMathematics educationConcept learningCognitive psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This quasi-experimental study investigated the effects on 558 grades five and six students of three different teaching conditions: the classical model of conceptual change (for which cognitive conflict is considered as a precondition to the transformation of knowledge), the prevalence model of conceptual change (in which different conceptions can coexist, with one of them surpassing the others), and repetition of traditional teaching (that avoids cognitive conflicts and concentrates on the automatization of appropriate thought processes). These conditions were reduced to sequencing considerations, as classical model participants were first subjected to a possible cognitive conflict induced by a video, followed by another video about the targeted conceptions; prevalence model participants were subjected to the same videos but in the opposite chronological order; and repetition condition participants watched the “traditional teaching” video twice. Differences in accuracy and response times between our computerized and validated “sink/float” pretest and retest were analyzed. Results and interpretations confirm that cognitive conflicts are useful in teaching sequences that aim at producing conceptual changes. However, the major findings of this research suggest that such conflicts should not necessarily be triggered at the very beginning of teaching sequences, and therefore that the prevalence model might possibly be the preferable one to promote conceptual changes in real-life school science teaching settings. Recommendations for teaching and research are formulated. Presented results, although statistically significant, sometimes show weak effects sizes, and therefore call for further research efforts. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52: 1082–1108, 2015. Cette recherche étudie l'effet de trois conditions expérimentales sur des élèves de 5e et 6e années du primaire: le modèle classique du changement conceptuel (selon lequel le conflit cognitif est considéré comme préalable à une transformation des connaissances), le modèle de prévalence conceptuelle (selon lequel différentes conceptions peuvent coexister, avec l'une d'elle qui prévaut sur les autres) et la répétition simple de l'enseignement (qui néglige de produire des conflits cognitifs et se concentre sur l'automatisation des procédés et informations qui mènent aux bonnes réponses). Ces conditions ont été réduites à des considérations de séquençage. Ainsi, les sujets de la condition classique ont d'abord été exposés à des informations présentées par vidéo et susceptible de produire un conflit cognitif, suivi par une autre vidéo présentant les conceptions scientifiques désirées; les sujets de la condition prévalence ont écouté les deux mêmes vidéos mais dans l'ordre inverse; et les sujets de la condition répétition ont vu deux fois la vidéo des conceptions scientifiques. Une analyse comparative des gains d'exactitude et de temps de réaction lors d'une tâche portant sur la flottabilité des corps a été effectuée. Les résultats et l'interprétation tendent à confirmer que les conflits cognitifs sont nécessaires aux changements conceptuels. Cependant, les résultats suggèrent également que les conflits n'ont pas nécessairement avantage à être provoqués en début de séquence et conséquemment que le modèle de prévalence serait possiblement celui qui aurait avantage à être utilisé en classe de science. Des recommandations pédagogiques sont formulées. Malgré des résultats clairement significatifs, les faibles magnitudes d'effets obtenues pour certaines mesures appellent à la prudence et à la poursuite des travaux.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.673
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.092 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it