Psychology and epistemology: Match or mismatch when applied to science education?

Richard Alan Duschl, Richard Hamilton, Richard E. Grandy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Cognitive psychology's descriptions of an individual's knowledge resemble those philosophers’ offer of scientific theory. Both offer resources for conceptual change teaching. Yet the similarities mask tensions ‐philosophers stress rationality and psychologists focus on causal structure. Both domains distinguish two kinds of change in knowledge structures‐one common and cumulative, the other rare and non‐cumulative. The structures facilitate incremental development but resist major revisions. Unless instruction actively induces restructuring, students’ knowledge will be confused and incomplete. Knowledge is largely organized by schemata, representing the significant concepts and relations in a domain. But using knowledge also requires procedures for recalling, applying and revising schemata. Questions discussed include: When should we present a theory in the context of justification‐‐where knowledge claims are systematically but a historically delineated; and when in the context of development‐‐where knowledge claims are initially developed? How can prototypical examples facilitate schema acquisition and appropriate retrieval? How can individuals be made active participants in the restructuring process? How can the need for restructuring be motivated? To what extent should we stress the historical and rational development of modern science? Are educators prepared to employ complex teaching strategies identified by researchers? To what extent do students’ naive theories parallel early stages of science?.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)230-243
Number of pages14
JournalInternational Journal of Science Education
Volume12
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1990

Fingerprint

mismatch
epistemology
restructuring
psychology
science
common knowledge
education
teaching strategy
psychologist
knowledge
rationality
student
educator
instruction
Teaching
resources

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education

Cite this

Duschl, Richard Alan ; Hamilton, Richard ; Grandy, Richard E. / Psychology and epistemology : Match or mismatch when applied to science education?. In: International Journal of Science Education. 1990 ; Vol. 12, No. 3. pp. 230-243.
@article{c0e8715f34ec4e09ac6e52d3b55222bc,
title = "Psychology and epistemology: Match or mismatch when applied to science education?",
abstract = "Cognitive psychology's descriptions of an individual's knowledge resemble those philosophers’ offer of scientific theory. Both offer resources for conceptual change teaching. Yet the similarities mask tensions ‐philosophers stress rationality and psychologists focus on causal structure. Both domains distinguish two kinds of change in knowledge structures‐one common and cumulative, the other rare and non‐cumulative. The structures facilitate incremental development but resist major revisions. Unless instruction actively induces restructuring, students’ knowledge will be confused and incomplete. Knowledge is largely organized by schemata, representing the significant concepts and relations in a domain. But using knowledge also requires procedures for recalling, applying and revising schemata. Questions discussed include: When should we present a theory in the context of justification‐‐where knowledge claims are systematically but a historically delineated; and when in the context of development‐‐where knowledge claims are initially developed? How can prototypical examples facilitate schema acquisition and appropriate retrieval? How can individuals be made active participants in the restructuring process? How can the need for restructuring be motivated? To what extent should we stress the historical and rational development of modern science? Are educators prepared to employ complex teaching strategies identified by researchers? To what extent do students’ naive theories parallel early stages of science?.",
author = "Duschl, {Richard Alan} and Richard Hamilton and Grandy, {Richard E.}",
year = "1990",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/0950069900120302",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "230--243",
journal = "International Journal of Science Education",
issn = "0950-0693",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

Psychology and epistemology : Match or mismatch when applied to science education? / Duschl, Richard Alan; Hamilton, Richard; Grandy, Richard E.

In: International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 12, No. 3, 01.01.1990, p. 230-243.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Psychology and epistemology

T2 - Match or mismatch when applied to science education?

AU - Duschl, Richard Alan

AU - Hamilton, Richard

AU - Grandy, Richard E.

PY - 1990/1/1

Y1 - 1990/1/1

N2 - Cognitive psychology's descriptions of an individual's knowledge resemble those philosophers’ offer of scientific theory. Both offer resources for conceptual change teaching. Yet the similarities mask tensions ‐philosophers stress rationality and psychologists focus on causal structure. Both domains distinguish two kinds of change in knowledge structures‐one common and cumulative, the other rare and non‐cumulative. The structures facilitate incremental development but resist major revisions. Unless instruction actively induces restructuring, students’ knowledge will be confused and incomplete. Knowledge is largely organized by schemata, representing the significant concepts and relations in a domain. But using knowledge also requires procedures for recalling, applying and revising schemata. Questions discussed include: When should we present a theory in the context of justification‐‐where knowledge claims are systematically but a historically delineated; and when in the context of development‐‐where knowledge claims are initially developed? How can prototypical examples facilitate schema acquisition and appropriate retrieval? How can individuals be made active participants in the restructuring process? How can the need for restructuring be motivated? To what extent should we stress the historical and rational development of modern science? Are educators prepared to employ complex teaching strategies identified by researchers? To what extent do students’ naive theories parallel early stages of science?.

AB - Cognitive psychology's descriptions of an individual's knowledge resemble those philosophers’ offer of scientific theory. Both offer resources for conceptual change teaching. Yet the similarities mask tensions ‐philosophers stress rationality and psychologists focus on causal structure. Both domains distinguish two kinds of change in knowledge structures‐one common and cumulative, the other rare and non‐cumulative. The structures facilitate incremental development but resist major revisions. Unless instruction actively induces restructuring, students’ knowledge will be confused and incomplete. Knowledge is largely organized by schemata, representing the significant concepts and relations in a domain. But using knowledge also requires procedures for recalling, applying and revising schemata. Questions discussed include: When should we present a theory in the context of justification‐‐where knowledge claims are systematically but a historically delineated; and when in the context of development‐‐where knowledge claims are initially developed? How can prototypical examples facilitate schema acquisition and appropriate retrieval? How can individuals be made active participants in the restructuring process? How can the need for restructuring be motivated? To what extent should we stress the historical and rational development of modern science? Are educators prepared to employ complex teaching strategies identified by researchers? To what extent do students’ naive theories parallel early stages of science?.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84950442907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84950442907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/0950069900120302

DO - 10.1080/0950069900120302

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84950442907

VL - 12

SP - 230

EP - 243

JO - International Journal of Science Education

JF - International Journal of Science Education

SN - 0950-0693

IS - 3

ER -