Current Event #2: Constructivism Lee 1/7Miha LeeProfessor RivasSED 60018 April 2007Conceptual change using multiple interpretive perspectives:Two case studies in secondary school chemistryBy Allan G. Harrison & David F. TreagustFrom Instructional Science vol.29: 45–85, 2001.Harrison and Treagust (2001) conducted a case study of two studentsas they learned chemistry taught by the first author in an Australian highschool. Alex and Dan were followed throughout the whole academic year(36weeks) and were observed and interviewed for their understanding ofatomic structures. Finally, the researchers concluded that the understandingthe conceptual change requires multiple approaches toward theinterpretation of learning, involving “social and motivational factors,ontological issues, modeling ability, intellectual development”(p.45). This study attempted to explore alternative explanations for why giventhe same learning environment why some students learn but others do not.To answer the interesting question, two students were chosen with an explicitpurpose of supporting their assertion that students’ scores on standard testsand examinations are unreliable indicators of conceptual understanding. Inthis sense, the participants, Alex and Dan, were chosen because they wereapparently similar in terms of the achievement on the tests, but verydifferent in light of the quality of understanding. This is a purposefulCurrent Event #2: Constructivism Lee 2/7sampling for in-depth case study. Purposeful sampling is the dominantstrategy in qualitative research. Purposeful sampling seeks information-richcases that can be studied in depth (Hoepfl, 1997). When the researcherintroduced the participants, I could tell the intention of this study; theyquestioned the scores on the tests as an indicator of learning andunderstanding.However, the question to be asked is how the researchers knew thesestudents developed very different quality of conceptual understanding priorto conducting the research. The answer to this question was that this was thefollow-up study after the first author’ doctoral dissertation. They used thesame data in order to answer the different research question. As a result,there are some flaws in this study that need to be addressed before thereader can fully accept the validity of the conclusions. The researchers insisted that the social and motivational factors werethe main influence that caused the difference in the conceptual developmentof two students. However, there was no supportive evidence such asquotations from the interviews. They just described the personality andbackground in the student profile. In addition, one student, Dan, was fromSingapore and he moved to Australia at the beginning of this research. Theyexplained that his prior educational curriculum in science was suitableprerequisites for the Western Australian chemistry course, but I think hisdifferent cultural background could affect his learning process, and thus hisconceptual development. Despite any perceived flaws in this study, the topic and interpretationCurrent Event #2: Constructivism Lee 3/7of conceptual change were very interesting and useful to me. The targetconcept of this research was the atomic structure that is invisible and thushas many diverse forms of models depending on the purpose of thescientists. In fact, understanding of the nature of various atomic models,including ball and stick, electron shells, and electron clouds, is thefundamental goal of teaching and learning chemistry. Accordingly, the firstauthor taught chemistry in a traditional way except that every metaphor,analogy and model was discussed in detail with the students; theresearchers monitored the understanding and use of the analogical modelsof atoms and molecules.To determine the depth of the conceptual changes from priorknowledge to desired knowledge, the researchers employed three tools withregard to epistemology: conceptual status, modeling level, and intellectualability. I summarized and compared three epistemological tools in thefollowing table. To confirm the status of concept, the other tools are used.Because modeling levels are derived from the way students describe, explainand use models, the levels provide information about conceptual status, andthus modeling level changes may provide useful evidence for conceptualchange. Conceptual status, modeling level and intellectual ability seem to beinterrelated to allow their use as ‘triangulation of measures for conceptualchange’. There may be other way to evaluate and interpret the conceptualchange, but these three ways are sufficient enough to show the complexityand difficulty of assessing conceptual understanding. This multipleepistemological approach to measure the depth of conceptual understandingCurrent Event #2: Constructivism Lee 4/7informed me how to assess student’s learning.Conceptual status Modeling level Intellectual abilityIntelligible: A newconception is sensible andunderstood by a student.Conceptual captureAssimilation of new conceptLevel 1: Students who believe that there is a 1:1 correspondence between models and reality, that is models are small incomplete copies of actualobjects.Students in Dualismcategorize knowledge asright-or-wrong, defer to theteacher who knows thecorrect answer, expect tobe told what is right, andmemorize and regurgitateknowledge.Plausible: plausible meansthat in addition to thestudent knowing what theconception means, he/shefinds the conceptionbelievable.Level 2: Students who believe that models remain real world entities rather than representations of ideas, and a model’s main purpose is communication rather than idea exploration.Students who advance toMultiplism accept andrationalize diverserepresentations bybelieving that