Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
International Journal of
Science Education
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
To cite this article: Keith S. Taber (2001): Shifting sands: a case study of
conceptual development as competition between alternative conceptions,
International Journal of Science Education, 23:7, 731-753
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make
any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or
up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher
shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or
costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2001, VOL. 23, NO. 7, 731- 753
RESEARCH REPORT
Conceptual change may be considered as a process of coming to view one theory or model as having
more explanatory power than others. Various theorists have described how an individual’s understand-
ing of a concept may be multifaceted; how conceptual frameworks develop in a cognitive ecology, and
are subject to selection pressures; and how alternative frameworks compete in terms of their explanatory
coherence. The present paper applies these ideas to a case study of learning in science. It is argued that
conceptual development may be described in terms of a gradual shift in which of several alternative
explanatory principles is the learners’ preferred choice. The case study illustrates the long-term nature
of conceptual change, as a learner comes to see the limitations of one explanatory framework, and the
scope for exploring and developing another.
Introduction
them during a single explanation. He came to recognize the three distinct prin-
ciples he would use to answer the interviewer’s questions and he considered that
they were valid alternatives which each had some explanatory worth. Taber
(2000a) argued that such ‘multiple frameworks’ (Pope and Denicolo 1986) should
be expected as a common feature of learners’ thinking in science.
for analysing data (Wolpert 1992) but has developed from this same human nature.
It is accepted that by the time pupils are faced with formal science teaching
they already have a wealth of ideas about scientific topics—much of which is not
consistent with curricular science (e.g. Driver, Squires et al. 1994). It is also well
accepted that there are several possible outcomes when this ‘children’s science’
interacts with the curriculum science presented in school (Gilbert et al. 1982).
Some commentators have suggested that the science met in the formal curriculum
is stored in a different domain of cognitive structure to children’s science
(Solomon 1992, Claxton 1993). Such a division may be useful when considering
learners’ intuitive ideas about, say, force and motion (Gilbert and Zylbersztajn
1985). It is less helpful when considering learners’ alternative conceptions about
science topics that are only likely to be met within the formal curriculum. So, for
example, learners hold alternative conceptions about atomic phenomena (Taber
1998a, b) that cannot readily be explained as part of Solomon’s ‘life-world’
domain.
It is suggested here that a more potent approach builds upon the idea of an
‘epistemological profile’. According to Bachelard (1968: 43), even professional
scientists often operate with multifaceted versions of scientific concepts that
draw upon the historical, as well as the currently accepted, understanding of a
concept. Bachelard thought that the earlier philosophical positions acted as im-
pediments to progress. He believed the epistemological profile ‘bears the marks of
the obstacles which a culture has had to surmount’.
This perspective assumes that the individual scientist holds several different
meanings for a scientific concept in cognitive structure, variously applied in distinct
problem situations. In a similar way, research suggests that whether science
learners apply the versions of scientific concepts taught in class, or their pre-
existing alternative conceptions, can depend upon the context in which their
knowledge is elicited (Driver and Easley 1978, Viennot 1985, Driver and
Oldham 1986, Dumbrill and Birley 1987, Bliss et al. 1988, Hennessy 1993,
Maloney and Siegler 1993, Russell 1993). Manifold conceptions may be consid-
ered as the conceptual tools available to the learner (Taber 1995a), who must make
a selection that is appropriate to a particular context (Linder 1993). One distinc-
tion between the professional scientist and the school pupil or college student is a
matter of the profile being more or less weighted towards the more recent scientific
version of a concept (Mortimer 1995). Conceptual development implies a shift in
A CASE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 733
the learner’s epistemological profile, and the job of the science educator becomes
that of facilitating such a shift.
experience. Their third criterion was that the new scheme should seem a plausible
alternative, because it can be seen to explain the apparent discrepancies in the
present scheme, and it meets metaphysical expectations. Finally the new concep-
tions should seem to be ‘fruitful’, in that they suggest the possibility of wider
explanatory scope (Strike and Posner 1985, Thorley and Stofflet 1996).
Similarly, Thagard’s (1992) analysis of historical case studies suggests a range
of criteria are used to determine the explanatory coherence of a hypothesis, and that
alternative explanations ‘compete’ on such dimensions as:
. How much does the hypothesis explain?
. Are its explanations economical?
. Is the hypothesis similar to ones that explain similar phenomena?
. Is there an explanation of why the hypothesis might be true?
The first of these criteria—‘the explanatory breadth of the new theory’—is con-
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 12:48 06 May 2013
sidered to be the most important factor (p. 248). However, greater familiarity with
the existing theory and its potential applications may act as a barrier.
selected against. In Vygotsky’s (1986) terms, the teacher needs to scaffold activities
within the learner’s zone of proximal development.
database to identify common patterns that might have wider pedagogic signifi-
cance. Common alternative conceptual frameworks were identified for chemical
bonding (Taber 1998a) and for nucleus-electron interactions (Taber 1998b), and a
general model of how A level pupils’ ideas developed during the course was devel-
oped (Taber 1999).
In order to move between the detailed studies of idiosyncratic conceptualiza-
tions, and a general model of value to teachers, a grounded theory approach was
used (Taber 2000b). As part of this analytical process, detailed case studies of
individual learners were produced (Taber 1997: 184- 199). Although the case
studies represent a preliminary stage in the process of producing general models,
they are the fundamental levels of analysis for exploring conceptual change. So, for
example, detailed case studies can provide insights into why different aspects of an
individual’s thinking about a concept area may be more or less labile (Taber,
1995b).
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 12:48 06 May 2013
* The terms ‘octet’ and ‘full outer shell’ were used as if interchangeable.
738 K. TABER
. Why did Tajinder not shift to exclusively using his Coulombic forces ex-
planatory principle to explain bonding?
In other words why did conceptual change occur, and why was it only partial?
Analysis of the data collected suggests a number of features of the case which were
significant.
Tajinder had reason to consider his octet rule explanatory principle was
successful
At the start of his course Tajinder was confident that he knew why chemical
bonding occurred. He thought there were ‘two types of bonding, electrovalent,
covalent, . . . ionic or covalent’ (T1). He had a clear rationale for covalent bonding,
as in the case of the hydrogen molecule where,
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 12:48 06 May 2013
one electron is shared by each atom . . . hydrogen, to form a stable outer shell it needs
another hydrogen, and so as they have one [electron] each, they share both, so they
both think that they have two outer electrons. (T1)
This seemed to Tajinder to explain why the bond was formed, and he believed this
to be the accepted explanation that he had learnt at school. It was an explanation
that had been successful for him in the past, and which he was able to apply to all
the examples of covalent compounds he was (at that time) aware of. Similarly his
definition of the ionic bond as ‘where an atom loses its outermost electron, to
another atom which needs one electron in its outer shell to become stable’ seemed
robust (T1). This, again, was a well rehearsed form of explanation that Tajinder
brought with confidence from his school science. The only other type of bonding
Tajinder was aware of was metallic bonding, but he was ‘not sure what it is’
(T1).
Tajinder continued to apply the octet rule explanatory principle to his
two main categories of bond throughout his two-year course. In the case of
ionic bonding Tajinder had begun to apply an electrostatic perspective in his
first year, but even well into his second year would revert to his octet rule
principle:
for [a sodium atom] to become more stable than it already is, it can either gain seven
electrons or lose one electron, and the easiest, the more beneficial, is to lose an
electron. So by losing an electron it’s got one more proton than it has electrons so
it becomes [a] positively charged ion. Whilst in the case of chlorine, chlorine has seven
electrons in its valence shell, so in order to have a full octet it needs to gain an electron,
therefore there are more electrons than there are protons, so the whole thing is a
chloride ion which is negative, and when this occurs, [an] ionic bond is formed,
between sodium ions and chloride ions. (T17)
In the covalent case Tajinder continued to apply his octet rule explanatory
principle throughout his course. So in his final term he explained the bond in a
water molecule:
they do that to become more stable, which they are because hydrogen can either lose
one or gain one electron to have a full octet [sic], two electrons in the outermost shell
. . . and oxygen already has six and to gain another two it thinks it’s got a full octet
which is a noble gas configuration. So it does that. . . . that’s the answer to ‘why does a
bond form’. (T19)
A CASE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 739
Tajinder did not integrate his minimum energy and Coulombic forces
explanatory principles
From the ‘curriculum science’ viewpoint energy and force are distinct but related
concepts. Tajinder’s basic physics knowledge at the start of the course included
concepts of energy, force and charge, but did not match the orthodox science
versions of these concepts. For example, Tajinder did not always clearly distin-
guish between the forces arising from charged particles interacting, and the
charges themselves. In an early interview Tajinder referred to ‘positive and nega-
tive forces’ and explained that ‘two positive forces repel one another and so do two
negative forces repel one another, but opposite forces attract one another’ (T2).
To appreciate the link between energy and force in understanding chemical
bonding it is useful to see forces as arising from systems of interacting bodies which
(where unbalanced) cause changes in the configuration of the system—leading to a
lower energy. Yet Tajinder conceptualized force as associated with a single body,
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 12:48 06 May 2013
Tajinder did not have an explicit criterion for applying his minimum
energy explanatory principle
Tajinder’s minimum energy explanatory principle was used less than either his
octet rule or Coulombic explanatory principles. Indeed, it might be suggested
that Tajinder’s minimum energy explanatory principle was actually a pseudo-
explanation: something that took the form of an explanation, but actually lacked
inherent explanatory power (Taber and Watts 1999). Tajinder’s principle—based
on asking ‘would the energy be lower?’ (T3) required supplementary criteria
before a judgment could be made. In practice Tajinder’s octet rule explanatory
principle was often called upon to determine the answer. For example, he
explained that he thought lithium metal was at a lower energy than lithium
atoms because in the metal the lithium obeyed the octet rule explanatory principle,
‘because in [a] lithium atom, there’s one outer electron, so it’s not stable, [but] it
can gain a noble gas configuration if it loses an electron, and so it’s quite high
energy, so it wants to become lower energy’ (T3).
In the second year of his course Tajinder stated that ‘I think everything forms
bonds in order to become more stable, or at a lower energy’, but then went on to
explain this in octet terms in the specific case of the carbon- chloride bond, where
‘when CCl4 forms, all octet requirements are achieved for each species’ (T17).
When Tajinder attempted to give an explanation in terms of energy levels, his
use of the minimum energy principle was little more that tautological: ‘you can see
740 K. TABER
the chlorine is not stable as it is . . . it becomes more stable’. When asked to explain
this, Tajinder could only revert—once again—to an explanation in octet rule
terms:
I: Tell me about this in terms of stability. Why does that compound form?
T: It forms because when each individual atom is by itself it’s at a certain
energy level, and you can see [sic] the chlorine is not stable as it is, neither
is the carbon, not fully stable. So in order to become more stable it forms a
bond with something, in order to decrease the energy that it’s at, so it
becomes more stable, and that’s why species form bonds . . . .
I: Yeah? I’m going to push you a bit beyond that, if I may, and I’m going to
say why is that more stable than the separate atoms? Not just tell me the
answer ‘oh it’s a lower energy level’, but why is that at lower energy level
than the separate atoms?
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 12:48 06 May 2013
T: [after a pause for thought] It’s at a lower energy level because when
each individual species is by itself, as I said like chlorine has 7 elec-
trons in its outer shell, and the only way it can become more stable than
it is is to have a full octet, and that is to gain an electron to become a
chloride ion.
(T17)
(I: Interviewer, (KST); T: Tajinder)
During his course Tajinder learnt about new categories of chemical bond—
hydrogen bonds, Van der Waals’ forces, solvent-solute interactions—which he
could not explain using his octet rule principle. Initially he had confidence in his
explanatory principle, and excluded such interactions from the category of chemical
bond. So, for example, he felt that there was ‘not actually bonding’ between mol-
ecules of iodine (T1), and that between water molecules ‘there’s a force, but it’s not
a bond’ (T1). So in solid argon ‘they wouldn’t have any like covalent, ionic, or
metallic bonding’, but ‘just the force of the attraction of one nuclei [sic], to the
other electrons on another atom, just holding it together’ (T3).
During his course Tajinder wavered over which interactions were bonds, and
which were ‘just forces’. His confusion is clear in his discussion of van der Waals’
forces from near the end of his first year,
A CASE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 741
This is also a type of bonding, but it’s not, it’s actually a type of force, it’s not actually
a chemical bonding. What are we doing, chemical bondings, ain’t we? Yeah, this I
think could be counted as chemical bonding, but it’s not actually chemically linked, so
one molecule is not actually chemically linked to another molecule, it’s just a type of
force, that’s held in, holding them together. (T8)
By the end of the first year of his course Tajinder recognized that hydrogen
bonding was classed as ‘a type of bond’, albeit ‘not as strong as metallic or covalent,
[or] ionic bonding’ (T8). Yet even during the final term of his course Tajinder
distinguished between the intramolecular and intermolecular bonding in water as
‘an actual bond’ and ‘just an attraction’ respectively (T19).
Despite such references, Tajinder came to increasingly treat these interactions
as if they were bonds, even if he did not totally accept this use of the term. He came
to explain differences in melting temperature in terms of bond strength. So in
sulphur ‘the bond between one molecule and another’ was ‘harder’ to break than
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 12:48 06 May 2013
in chlorine or argon (T4). Later in his course Tajinder referred to the ‘type of
bonding’ in explaining deviations from Raoult’s law,
because the type of bonding between [molecules] in pure ethanol, and pure methanol
are quite similar, that when we mix them together, it’s supposed to be that the type of
bonding is the same so therefore it’s an ideal solution, and so it obeys Raoult’s law. . . .
then we have negative and positive deviation. And we have negative deviation when
we mix two liquids together, and the bonding is stronger than we predicted, which is in
the case of nitric acid and water, because when we add nitric acid to water it ionises
suggesting that there’s stronger bonding between the two, between the mixture. Or we
can have weaker bonding which is ethanol and water, because pure ethanol’s got
hydrogen bonding, and pure water’s got hydrogen bonding, but when we mix them
together, because of the shapes of the molecules the type of hydrogen bonding which
occurs is not as strong as it is in both the pure states, so therefore it’s got weaker
bonding, so it’s a positive deviation from Raoult’s law. (T16)
Yet these types of bond could not be explained in terms of atoms forming
octets, and so an alternative explanation was needed. Tajinder recognized the
electrostatic nature of these interactions. So in hydrogen bonding ‘there’s like
attraction between @‡ and @¡ on the molecules which are next to each other’
(T9). In his second year Tajinder recognized that van der Waals’ forces also had
electrostatic origins as the ‘plus charge in the middle is able to attract electrons
from other species’ which was ‘the same’ as in hydrogen bonding where ‘positive
charge is able to attract electrons . . . forming a force, or bond, known as hydrogen
bond’ (T16). Tajinder also came to recognize that solvation involved electrostatic
attractions, which he referred to as being ‘hydration bonds’ or ‘solvation bonds’
(T22).
Polar bonds were classed as covalent to fit the octet rule model
Another area of difficulty for Tajinder’s octet rule explanatory principle was that
of polar bonds. The idea of something being intermediate between the covalent and
ionic case does not make sense in terms of atoms ‘trying’ to fill shells.
By the second term Tajinder was talking of differences in electronegativity
being used to determine bond type, but in terms of an absolute distinction: a low
difference meant covalent, a large difference ionic (T2). As long as he saw bond
type as a dichotomy Tajinder was able to apply octet rule explanations. Even
though Tajinder demonstrated an awareness of polar bonding from early in his
742 K. TABER
The formation of dative bonds presented a greater difficulty for Tajinder’s octet
rule principle, as a dative bond usually involves a species already having an octet
configuration ‘donating’ electrons to form a bond. Near the end of his first year
Tajinder described a diagram of an aluminium chloride dimer (figure 1) as ‘com-
pletely wrong’, as it showed chlorine atoms ‘forming two bonds, but that can’t
happen . . . because it’s already got seven [electrons] in the outer shell. It only
needs one more, so therefore it only forms bonds with one electron’ (T9).
Tajinder thought that ‘there is a certain type of attraction’ between the mol-
ecules, but that ‘they won’t be bonds’ (T9). An alternative representation (figure 2)
made sense to him, in terms of six covalent bonds plus ‘electrostatic forces’.
Tajinder did not readily recognize failures of his octet rule principle
Tajinder’s octet rule explanatory principle explained chemical reactions and bond-
ing in terms of the needs of atoms: which meant that the principle was only valid if
he assumed the interacting species were discrete atoms. Tajinder was so com-
mitted to the validity of his octet rule explanatory principle that he did not notice
that it relied on this assumption.
Early in his second year Tajinder explained the reactivity of fluorine and
chlorine—‘they’re really reactive’—in terms of their not having stable electronic
configurations (T10). Although Tajinder ‘knew’ these elements existed as diatomic
molecules—‘You’ve got F2 ’—which were stable by his octet rule criterion, he
explained the reactivity in terms of discrete atoms that ‘need an extra electron to
gain a full outer shell’.
By this time Tajinder was also meeting instances of molecules that should not
have been stable by his criterion, but he seemed ‘blind’ to these counter-examples.
Tajinder described how an atom in period 3 needed eight or 18 electrons in its
valence shell to be stable (T10), but in the same interview he drew ‘stable’ mol-
ecules where the period three atom had six (AlCl3 , figure 3), and ten (PCl5 , figure
4) such electrons.
Despite being made aware of these counter-examples (he acknowledged that,
in figure 4, ‘phosphorus which I just said a minute ago should have eight or 18
[valence electrons], has got 10, and it’s stable’), Tajinder continued to use his octet
rule explanatory principle in the following interview, a few days later. He was
asked to draw a molecule of each of hydrogen and chlorine. He thought that
hydrogen and chlorine could react, and he added to his diagram the hydrogen
chloride molecule that would result (figure 5).
Later in the interview Tajinder was referred back to his diagram and asked
why there should be a reaction between the hydrogen and chlorine molecules he
had drawn. His response was based upon his octet rule explanatory principle,
744 K. TABER
They want to gain a noble gas configuration, or stable outer shells, and as hydrogen
has got an electron which it can get rid of, and the chlorine has got a shell where it can
accept an electron, they’ll both combine forming an ionic [sic] bond, where the
hydrogen electron is taken by the chlorine. (T11)
Tajinder’s explanation only made sense if the reactant species did not already
have ‘full outer shells’. At first he confirmed that this was indeed the case, until he
realized that the reactant molecules he had drawn already satisfied the octet rule
criterion for stability.
Tajinder concluding that the number of bonds an ion can form depends upon the
number of electrons transferred to or from that ion. So in sodium chloride, where a
sodium atom was considered to transfer one electron to one chlorine atom, each
sodium ion could only be bonded to one chlorine ion. If each ion is only bonded to
one other, then the ionic bonding cannot explain the integrity of the ionic lattice.
(From the perspective of curricular science, this is the very thing that ionic bond-
ing should explain.) Tajinder explained the structural integrity in electrostatic
terms, but did not identify this with the bonding,
one chlorine is only bonded to one sodium, because a sodium atom can only lose one
electron, so, therefore . . . it can only gain one bond, but the thing is holding itself
together because there’s positive and negative charges. (T1)
Tajinder fitted his understanding of the ionic bond to the nature of ionic solids
by supposing that the ions were equally attracted, though not equally bonded, to
their neighbours. During his course Tajinder gradually explored ways to ‘square
this circle’, to explain how the ions could be equally bonded to several neighbours
whilst defining the bond in terms of electron transfer (T8). He suggested, in turn,
that:
. it was not possible to tell ‘which sodium gave which chlorine it’s electron’,
and therefore the bonds were ‘equal’;
. each ion formed one bond, but ‘the bond can move around’;
. the donated electrons were ‘able to move around’ between different anions.
When each of these possibilities ran into logical difficulties, Tajinder then, tenta-
tively, considered the possibility that the bond was the electrostatic attraction
between ions:
is it because sodium has formed positive ions, and chlorine formed negative ions
’cause they’ve gain an electron, and sodium has lost an electron, and it’s not clear
which chlorine the sodium donates its electron to, but because this is negative and this
is positive there’s a certain amount of attraction between them and therefore this is
why there’s a bond, electrostatic, er, dunno. (T8)
After discussing the ionic bond in a material formed through double decom-
position (where it might be thought to be obvious that electron transfer has not
occurred between the ions in the precipitate), he eventually accepted the elec-
trostatic definition of the bond. Indeed, even in this case, Tajinder initially
746 K. TABER
considered the ionic bond in the precipitate to be due to electron transfer between
the ions in the solid. From his perspective the electron transfer events that had
given rise to the ions in the reacting solutions had been reversed so that new
electron transfers could take place to form the new ionic bonds. Tajinder had no
difficulty in accepting such reversals in principle, but was not fully satisfied with
this scheme as he questioned whether there had been time for the reactant ions to
return the electrons to reform atoms again before the new reaction.
Even after this ‘critical thought experiment’ Tajinder still seemed to need to
justify how an ion could bond to several others by talking of how a sodium atom
doesn’t know which chlorine it gives its electron to, and doesn’t really care where it
goes to; and how the chlorine which gains an electron doesn’t care where it came
from (T9).
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 12:48 06 May 2013
By the end of his first year Tajinder was able to relate these new concepts to
underlying electrostatic principles. He explained that ‘you can work out the elec-
tron density, how much the electrons are attracted to one side’. The result could be
‘ionic bonding because the electrons are attracted to one side more than an other’.
Alternatively, when bonds were formed between ‘the same type of atom, they have
equal pull on the electrons, showing the electron density is smeared out equally,
showing it is covalently bonded’. However, Tajinder now recognized that ‘nor-
mally compounds are polar, which is something in between’. This occurred as
electronegativity values were ‘similar, but not the same’, showing that ‘one has a
greater attraction to pull in the electron’ (T8). So, for example, in the bond
between lithium and iodine,
the electrons are free to move around the lithium and the iodine, but they’re closer
attracted to the iodine, than they are to lithium, but the electrons are not completely
removed from the lithium . . . iodine has got a higher high electronegativity value so it
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 12:48 06 May 2013
attracts the electrons more than lithium . . . the iodine has got a much greater core
charge. (T9)
Talk of atoms ‘needing’ electron density could act as a bridge between viewing
chemistry in terms of desires and using electrostatic ideas. Even anthropomorphic
or teleological explanations in terms of electron density gave Tajinder opportu-
nities to practice the language of forces:
in the chlorine atom there are seven electrons in its outermost shell, so there’s like a
gap where another electron should be placed to have perfect spherical density around
the nucleus, so as there’s an electron missing there’s sort of a gap that appears, and
that gap is where an electron should [sic] be, so due to the electronegativity of chlorine
if another electron from another species appears, somewhere nearby, and can fill that
gap, then the chlorine would pull it in to have spherical density, or so it thinks it’s got
spherical density. (T17)
Discussion
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 12:48 06 May 2013
In this paper some key aspects of Tajinder’s case have been identified. It is sug-
gested that Tajinder’s developing understanding of the chemical bond concept
may be largely explained in terms of a transition between the use of two explana-
tory principles. Tajinder commenced his college chemistry course with his octet
rule explanatory principle which had its origins in ideas he had studied in school.
He was familiar with the application of this principle, and confident in its power to
explain chemical bonds. Indeed, it was a principle of considerable simplicity,
which he was able to apply to a wide range of covalent and ionic bonds that he
had considered to this point in his studies. Tajinder found his octet rule principle
provided the basis of a framework for thinking about bonding which would seem
to him to be consistent, parsimonious and comprehensive.
The study of college level chemistry changed the conceptual ecology in which
Tajinder’s octet rule principle had to operate. During the two years of his course
Tajinder was exposed to many hours of teacher-talk, as well as discussions with
peers and interaction with various textual materials. His impressions of these
experiences would have contributed to the cognitive resources he had available
at various times during the course, and his teachers’ explanations would have acted
as models for his own answers to chemistry questions. Tajinder’s conceptual ecol-
ogy would have evolved during the period that the case study was undertaken.
New examples of stable molecules were met (such as PCl5 ) that did not satisfy
the octet criterion for stability. New categories of bond (e.g. dative, hydrogen-
bonding) were discussed which did not make sense in terms of his extant expla-
natory principle. A focus on the molecular or ionic nature of rectants led to an
awareness of species satisfying the octet criterion but still being reactive (e.g. F2 ).
He discovered there were new properties of bonds (such as polarity) to be
explained, where the octet principle was of no value. Tajinder had reasons to be
dissatisfied with existing conceptual schemes.
A focus on the relationship between structure and properties led to an aware-
ness that Tajinder’s conception of the ionic bond did not explain the structural
coherence of the ionic lattice. Tajinder experienced cognitive dissonance when he
tried to define the ionic bond as electron transfer and to explain how an ion could
bond equally to several neighbours. He met similar problems when trying to
explain how ionic precipitates form. Tajinder’s re-description of the ionic lattice
in anthropomorphic language (atoms not knowing or caring where electrons had
moved from and to), like his notion of atoms desiring more electron density, may be
A CASE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 749
cess was not complete, but was well on course. Tajinder had started to ‘consciously
or unconsciously appreciate that these [new] accounts have greater explanatory
coherence’ (p. 258), and to ‘use the new system enough to appreciate its power’
(p. 59). One might expect that Tajinder would have undergone a substantial con-
ceptual revolution. However, this was moderated by the initial familiarity with his
existing notions, the consequent reluctance to abandon what had been perceived as
a successful explanatory principle, and his failure to integrate notions of energy
states into his Coulombic framework. As Thagard comments, a full conceptual
revolution takes years. During Tajinder’s (2 year) college chemistry course the
revolution was not completed. There is, however, clear evidence of a significant
shift in the profile of his bonding explanations.
The notion of a conceptual ecology is metaphorical, but fertile. This in-depth
case study of science learning has provided evidence to show how a learner may
simultaneously hold manifold explanatory conceptual schemes for a particular
topic area (Taber 2000a). In the present paper, evidence has been presented to
show why one of Tajinder’s explanatory principles (minimum energy) failed to put
down deep roots, and how, over time, the topology of Tajinder’s cognitive struc-
ture came to favour the growth of a new alternative scheme (Coulombic forces)
over the ‘native species’ (octet rule). This on-going conceptual revolution did not
involve a gestalt-shift between the competing conceptions, but rather a gradual
process of succession within the shifting sands of the conceptual ecology.
References
Ault, C. R., Novak, J. D. and Gowin, D. B. (1984) Constructing vee maps for clinical
interviews on molecule concepts. Science Education, 68, 441- 462.
Ausubel, D. P. (1961) In defense of verbal learning. Educational Theory, 11, 15-25.
Bachelard, G. (1968) The Philosophy of No: a philosophy of the scientific mind (New York:
Orion Press) (original French edition published in 1940).
Bliss, J., Morrison, I. and Ogborn, J. (1988) A longitudinal study of dynamics concepts.
International Journal of Science Education, 10, 99-110.
Boyes, E. (1988) Catastrophic misconceptions in science education. Physics Education, 23,
105-109.
Calvin, W. H. (1998) The emergence of intelligence, in Exploring Intelligence, Scientific
American Presents, 9, 44- 50.
A CASE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 751
Rowell, J. A. and Dawson, C. J. (1985) Equilibration, conflict and instruction: a new class-
oriented perspective. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 331- 344.
Russell, T. (1993) An alternative conception: representing representations. In P. J. Black
and A. M. Lucas (eds), Children’s Informal Ideas in Science (London: Routledge) 62-
84.
Smith, J. P., di Sessa, A. A. and Roschelle, J. (1993) Misconceptions reconceived: a
constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 3, 115-163.
Solomon, J. (1992) Getting to Know about Energy—in School and Society (London: Falmer
Press).
Stavridou, H. and Solomonidou, C. (1998) Conceptual reorganisation and the construction
of the chemical reaction concept during secondary education. International Journal of
Science Education, 20, 205- 221.
Strike, K. A. and Posner, G. J. (1985) A conceptual change view of learning and under-
standing. In L. H. T. West and A. L. Pines (eds), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual
Change (London: Academic Press Inc.) 211-231.
Strike, K. A. and Posner, G. J. (1992) A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A.
Duschl and R. J. Hamilton (eds), Philosophy of Science, Cognitice Psychology, and
Educational Theory and Practice (Albany, NY: SUNY Press).
Taber, K. S. (1994) Can Kelly’s triads be used to elicit aspects of chemistry students’
conceptual frameworks? Paper presented at the British Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, September 1994, University of Oxford, available
via Education-line, at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/
Taber, K. S. (1995a) An analogy for discussing progression learning chemistry. School
Science Review, 76, 91-95.
Taber, K. S. (1997) Understanding chemical bonding—the development of A level
students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding. PhD thesis,
University of Surrey.
Taber, K. S. (1998a) An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education.
International Journal of Science Education, 20, 597- 608.
Taber, K. S. (1998b) The sharing-out of nuclear attraction: or I can’t think about Physics in
Chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1001- 1014.
Taber, K. S. (1999) An explanatory model for conceptual development during A level
chemistry, presented at the annual conference of the British Educational Research
Association, University of Sussex, September 1999, avcailable via Education-line, at
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/
Taber, K. S. (2000a) Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual
cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 399-417.
Taber, K. S. (2000b) Case sudies and generalizability: grounded theory and research in
science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 469-487.
A CASE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 753
Taber, K. S. and Watts, M. (1996) The secret life of the chemical bond: students’ anthro-
pomorphic and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science
Education, 18, 557- 568.
Taber, K. S. and Watts, M. (1999) Learner’s explanations for chemical phenomema,
presented at the 5th European Conference on Research in Chemical Education,
University of Ioannina, Greece, 21- 25 September, 1999.
Thagard, P. (1992) Conceptual Revolutions (Oxford: Princeton University Press).
Thorley, N. R. and Stofflet, R. T. (1996) Representation of the conceptual change model
in science teaching education. Science Education, 80, 317- 339.
Viennot, L. (1985) Analyzing students’ reasoning: tendencies in interpretation. American
Journal of Physics, 53, 432-436.
Vosniadou, S. (1992) Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Applied Psychology: an
International Review, 41, 347- 357.
Vosniadou, S. (1994) Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning
and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and Language (London: MIT Press), first published in
Russian in 1934.
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 12:48 06 May 2013