This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 28 November 2014, At: 06:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20

Thinking about sound: children's changing conceptionsBrenda j. Gustafson aa University of AbertaPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Brenda j. Gustafson (1991) Thinking about sound: children's changing conceptions, International Journal ofQualitative Studies in Education, 4:3, 203-214, DOI: 10.1080/0951839910040302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951839910040302

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION, 1991, VOL. 4, NO. 3, 203-214

Thinking about sound:children's changing conceptions

BRENDAJ. GUSTAFSONUniversity of Aberta

This paper explores how elementary children construct meaning during a classroom science uniton sound. It focuses on the complexity of children's thinking and on factors which influencechildren to change their ideas or to change the teacher's science to make it compatible with theirideas. The status of children's conceptual changes is open to several interpretations, and anymodels of conceptual change must accommodate this range of children's thought processes. Thispaper examines how the ideas of a small group of elementary children change during theclassroom presentation of a unit on sound. The theoretical basis of this examination is theconstructivist view of learning initially described by Kelly (1955) and expanded upon inalternative framework research (Driver, 1981; Driver & Bell, 1986; Osborne, Bell, & Gilbert,1983; Pope & Gilbert, 1983; Pope & Keen, 1981). The discussion begins with a review of theoriesconcerning the process of conceptual change and strategies that have been devised to bringchildren's ideas into greater agreement with teachers' and scientists' science. Scientists' science isthe "generally accepted scientific viewpoint regarding any particular aspect of science"(Osborne, Bell, & Gilbert, 1983, p. 1). Each teacher gives his or her own version andinterpretation of scientists' science during classroom presentation. This version is called theteacher's science.

Theoretical background of conceptual change

Many science education researchers recognize that children entering school classroomspossess many ideas about science curriculum topics (Driver, 1981; Driver, Guesne &Tiberghien, 1985; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Osborne & Wittrock, 1983). During thepresentation of a science unit, these initial ideas may remain constant or may change asthe children attend to and evaluate the teacher's science. At the end of a classroomscience unit, therefore, children have a variety of alternative ideas or frameworks forthe science even though they may tend to record similar answers on unit examinations.

Some science education researchers have explored children's alternativeframeworks in an attempt to understand how children form these ideas, how children'sideas change, and how educators should respond to the variety of children's ideas(Driver & Erickson, 1983; Hewson, 1981; Osborne & Wittrock, 1985; Posner, Strike,Hewson & Gertzog, 1982).

Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) describe the process of conceptualchanges as involving (a) the recognition of an anomaly, (b) the belief that it is necessaryto reconcile the anomaly into existing conceptions, (c) a commitment to reducinginconsistencies among existing beliefs, and (d) a recognition that former attempts toassimilate have been unsuccessful. They add that conceptual change might well be agradual and piecemeal affair and that such issues as motivation and commitment areimportant elements of the change process.

Student motivation and commitment have been related to children's perceptions of

0951-8398/91 $3.00 © 1991 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

204 BRENDAJ. GUSTAFSON

success and of the relevancy of the science topic. Wittrock (1986) argues that if studentsbelieve that efforts made to change ideas and to struggle towards a personalunderstanding of the teacher's science are directly related to success, they will be morelikely to be motivated towards this effort. If, however, a student attributes schoolsuccess to the ability to recall and repeat the teacher's science, then he or she may bemore likely to concentrate on memorizing the teacher's science and be less concernedwith integrating this science into their present ideas. Barnes (1976) comments thatmotivation may depend in part on whether the child finds the subject under study to bemeaningful. Osborne (1985) adds that children who are "encouraged to ask genuinequestions that they have about things . . . [and] are helped to undertake relevantinvestigations to find answers to diese questions" (p. 19) are more likely to maintaintheir thirst for learning about things in science, to be willing to change their ideas, andto strive towards constructing personal meanings.

Some researchers have proposed that there is an element of risk involved in leavingthe security of known ideas and beginning a struggle towards some new understandingwhich might well involve changing long-standing ideas about a topic (Claxton, 1984;Maslow, 1966; Smith, 1987; Solomon, 1983). Smith (1987) writes,

To take a risk requires that the "unknown" be encountered - that we do indeedexperience uncertainty. We are required to do more than what feels comfortable,more than simply display those "capabilities" we have. We must dig deep withinourselves and test the limits of our resources. Taking a risk is the project ofencountering the "unknown" wherein self-understanding occurs (p. 64).

Claxton (1984) warns that a child may find it threatening to give up existing ideasbecause he or she may personally identify with those existing ideas. Therefore, ifClaxton's hypothesis is correct, giving up an existing idea may be comparable to givingup something of oneself. This could represent a threat to the child's social Stability andpossibly could result in die child eidier retaining his or her prior ideas or being morelikely to modify the teacher's science to render it compatible with existing ideas.

Solomon (1983) adds that another way children may cope with the implied threat ofconceptual change and with perceived discrepancies between their ideas and theteacher's science is to develop two domains of knowledge. Solomon relates herreference to domains to Schutz and Luckmann's (1973) discussion of life - worldknowledge and symbolic universes of knowledge, and to Donaldson's (1978) notion ofembedded and disembedded diought. Solomon maintains that one of the child'sdomains may consist of the everyday notions the child uses to explain his or her world,and these ideas might well be at variance widi the teacher's science. This domain ofeveryday ideas is "reinforced by communication with others and by language itself,which gives this 'life-world' knowledge bom social value and great persistence" (Solomon,1983, p. 50).

The second domain contains the scientific explanations associated with theteacher's science that the child may use to explain classroom science activities.Solomon (1983) argues that it might not be necessary or conceivable for children tochange their everyday notions about science so these ideas are in greater agreementwith scientists' science. Children, and even adults, may find their everyday notionsabout science to be quite sufficient and satisfactory. Instead, Solomon contends diat thetwo domains may exist quite separate from each other, and "the deepest levels ofunderstanding are achieved... by the fluency and discrimination with which we learnto move between these two contrasting domains [life-world structures and symbolic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

THINKING ABOUT SOUND 205

domain] of knowledge" (p. 58). Certainly children are faced with numerous challengesin school science which could result in some children retreating from the subject, otherspartially accepting the ideas, and still others becoming fluent in alternating betweentwo domains of knowledge.

Aldiough Solomon (1983) argues that children's ideas and scientists' science cancoexist and can be exploited according to the situation in which children findthemselves, other researchers have viewed children's alternative ideas as problematic.Another approach to the recognition of disparities between children's and scientists'science has been to devise strategies which are intended to help children change theirideas and achieve greater consensus with scientists' science (Anderson & Smith, 1984;Driver & Erickson, 1983; Hewson, 1981; Hewson&A'BeckettHewson, 1984; Johnson& Howe, 1978; Osborne, Bell & Gilbert, 1983; Osborne & Wittrock, 1985; Pines,1980; Posner & Gertzog, 1982; Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982; Rowell &Dawson, 1985). Prominent among these is the work done by Hewson (1981) whomaintains that four conditions must be satisfied for change to take place: "there mustbe some dissatisfaction with the initial conception; the new conception must beintelligible; the new conception must be initially plausible; and the new conceptionmust be fruitful" (p.387). To create initial dissatisfaction, researchers have triedinstructional conflict, discrepant events, specific teaching sequences, or modifiedinstructional strategies designed to challenge children's alternative ideas. Thesestrategies, however, assume that children will readily see these anomalies and thatlearning is promoted by the resultant conflict.

This view of change has not gone unchallenged and Claxton (1986) warns that "anequally likely response to being challenged or 'confronted' is a defensiveentrenchment, and a denial or evasion of the learning opportunity" (p. 127). Hefurther contends that "children generally learn from discovering alternative ways ofachieving a successful performance radier dian from attempts to rectify error, failure,or conflict" (p. 127). Gunstone, Champagne, and Klopfer (1981) also caution thathumans have a large capacity for storing conflicting principles. Therefore, a discrepantor conflicting event might not replace an idea but radier be stored alongside the view itwas intended to supersede.

These ideas about conceptual change show that there exists a range of hypothesesabout the process of change and factors which might influence change. The variety ofideas show that conceptual change is a complex process and that current models ofconceptual change are still in the process of striving to accommodate the full range ofchildren's thinking.

Research methodology

The research reported here is a situational study using collaborative research methodsthat allowed the classroom teacher to share in die research experience. Thiscollaboration proved to be an important element in die study as the teacher providedbackground information about die students and insights into dieir personalities diatassisted in interpreting interview transcripts. Some of die specific responsibilities whichdie teacher assumed in die study were (a) sharing ideas about presenting science inschools, (b) exchanging ideas about children's learning in science, (c) modifying dieresearch design, (d) reading and discussing interview transcripts and lessondescriptions, (e) reading and commenting on working copies of die study write-up, (f)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

206 BRENDAJ. GUSTAFSON

participating in audio-taped interviews, (g) collecting children's documents, and (h)reflecting on the experience of collaboration.

Research setting

The teacher who agreed to participate in this study was a grade 4 teacher in a schoollocated in a large urban area. Prior, to beginning data collection, I explained therationale and proposed methodology of the study to the teacher and her students. Idescribed the study as being concerned with how and what children learn during thepresentation of a classroom science unit. I told the children that I would interview someof them after each science lesson to ask about their perceptions of the lesson and howtheir ideas changed during the science unit. The teacher and I selected five childrenwho agreed to participate in these interviews.

The teacher at that time was completing a unit on magnets, so we agreed that thisstudy would focus on her next science unit about sound. Before the sound unit began, Italked to the five children about their perceptions of the words learn, understand, andbelieve. The children's comments formed a starting point for this study and showed thatthey were able to perceive a range in dieir reactions to the teacher's science and torecognize implicitly that during the progress of a science unit there were concepts aboutwhich they felt different degrees of confidence. The children also talked about theirinitial ideas about sound, and their lists of ideas enabled me to identify changes in thechildren's thinking during die course of the study. After these initial interviews, theteacher presented a five-week unit on the topic of sound, and after each of the 16 lessonsin this unit I asked the five children to comment on their perceptions of the lessons andon how their ideas changed over the course of the science unit.

Data collection

Data collection consisted of (a) written records of all 16 lessons presented in the soundunit; (b) individual interviews with die five children at the beginning of die study andafter die presentation of each lesson; (c) group interviews widi the children at the end ofdie study; (d) teacher interviews about die planning and presentation of the scienceunit, die interview transcripts, and die experience of collaboration; and (e) a dailyjournal about my reflections on die study.

Data analysis

The list of questions to which die children responded after each science lesson provideddie broad framework against which data analysis occurred. The choice of interviewquestions was guided by comments and observations made in alternative frameworkresearch literature and was designed to explore die children's perceptions of (a) thepurpose of die lesson, (b) how diey coped widi die lesson, (c) what diey learned andunderstood about die lesson, (d) what diey believed about the lesson, (e) how dieirideas changed, (f) how die lesson might be related to odier lessons, (g) how diey definednew vocabulary, and (h) what diey wondered about at die conclusion of the lesson. Thechildren's answers to diese questions were compiled into interview summaries and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

THINKING ABOUT SOUND 207

were examined against my written descriptions of the content, action, and dialogue ofthe science lesson. Brief interpretations of these summaries were discussed with thechildren and the teacher, and their comments and interpretations were added to mine.In this way, data analysis, and the validity and reliability of the interpretations,became, to some extent, a collaborative analysis in which the ongoing process ofinvestigation and collaboration resulted in an accurate description of the situation,followed by interpretations which portrayed the ideas and experiences of dieparticipants. Readers of study data, too, can participate in the determination ofvalidity "to the extent that the observations cover some matters that they are alreadyfamiliar with" (Stake & Easley, 1978, p.C:27).

The small number of children in this study limits generalizability in the traditionalsense. Instead, generalizability depends on the degree to which the reader can relate towhat is described, remove it from context, and interpret it in terms of his or her ownlife experiences (Stake & Easley, 1978).

Analysis of die interview transcripts showed mat die children constructed personalmeanings of the teacher's science and that these meanings were preceded by thechildren being willing to attend to the teacher's science, to relate die teacher's scienceto what diey already knew, and to deliberate over and judge die teacher's science. Thisprocess of constructing meaning could result in a variety of outcomes includingretaining prior ideas, modifying the teacher's science to fit existing ideas, extendingand modifying existing ideas, and what appeared to be sudden changes in the students'ideas.

Deliberating over the teacher's science: children talking aboutchange

As die children formed links between the teacher's science and what they already knew,diey were continually making judgements and conversing to diemselves about theselinks and what die links potentially implied about dieir existing ideas and the teacher'sscience. The children's deliberations seemed to be influenced by a combination ofcognitive and affective factors, in addition to their prior experiences and die teacher'spresentation of die science.

During die children's overwhelming number of modifications, apparent changes,and frequent reversals, it was often difficult to assess how cognitive, affective, andsituational factors were coming to influence the children to give die answers theyoffered. At times it seemed diat die children did progress dirough Hewson's (1981)attributes of change, but at odier times it appeared diat die apparent change in dieirideas was only tentative and part of die mosaic of evolving ideas which die childrenconsidered during the sound unit. By examining some selected examples of diechildren's attempts to integrate some of die teacher's science into dieir own ideas, wecan gain some insight into die intelligent, tangled, and mosdy experimental web ofideas which die children wove as diey struggled towards a personal understanding.

Modifying the teacher's science to Jit existing ideas

The most outstanding example of a child gaining some knowledge during die scienceunit, and then modifying die teacher's science to support this knowledge, wasdisplayed over the span of diree lessons by a child named Victoria.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

208 BRENDAJ. GUSTAFSON

During the first of these lessons, Victoria had the opportunity to yell to her friendsthrough a tin-can telephone and a rubber garden hose. After this lesson, she explainedthat she could hear sounds better through the hose because not only was the hose widerthan the string of the tin-can telephone, but the hose also contained a hollow space thatwas bigger than the hollow in the string. She based this explanation on her previousknowledge that sound travelled in the form of sound waves, and obviously those soundwaves relied on the presence of air. Air, she said, was in the hollow space of the hoseand the string. Victoria's explanation seemed reasonable in light of the children's priorexposure to ringing tuning forks and a bell-and-jar demonstration which showed thatsound needed air through which to travel.

During the second lesson, however, the teacher presented activities and demonstra-tions intended to support the idea that sound also could travel through a solid and that,when compared to air, sounds were louder through a solid. Victoria participated in allof these activities and observed that when she held her ear on the table and tapped thetable with her finger, the sound was louder than when she held her ear over the tableand tapped. She explained, however, that the sound was louder when her ear was onthe table because the table was hollow, and she added that she was aware of the hollowconstruction of tables because tables were similar to the clay objects she had sculptedand fired during art class.

I think all the tables are hollow except for our table at home . . . .Do you knowwhy tables are hollow? I diink some of the tables are spray painted and they arehot and you have to have some air. Like, when we have art you have to dig a littlehollow in here at the bottom of your [sculpture] because it might explode.

During the last of the three lessons, the children viewed a film which showed thatrabbits could hear through solids such as soil. On the surface, it seemed that thisconflicted with Victoria's ideas about the necessity for hollow spaces and couldpotentially influence her to change her explanation. Victoria, however, explained thatrabbits could hear approaching predators because the sound travelled down the hollowtunnels of their burrows.

This example makes clear how Victoria formed an initial perception about howsound travelled through hollow spaces which contained air, and then direadedtogether, and modified aspects of the teacher's science to support her initial perception.It does not appear that Victoria recognized the conflicts between her own ideas and theteacher's science, nor does it appear that she possessed doubts about her personalexplanation of the science. Instead, she appeared quite confident in her reasoning, andperhaps we can assume that she still retains this explanation.

Why did Victoria continue to maintain that sound could travel only through hollowobjects, while odier children all offered explanations about sound travelling throughsolids? One explanation might lie widi Victoria's conception of a solid. The teachersuggested that children may have difficulty understanding that string is a solid becausethey might associate die term solid with objects that are hard and rigid, such as a desk.In a subsequent interview, I questioned Victoria about solids and she explained thatthere were two kinds of solids: (a) solids which are hollow (e.g., some tables), and (b)solids which are solid (e.g., walls and floors). By using this personal system ofcategorizing solids, Victoria was able to retain her own idea (i.e., sound travelsthrough hollows) and yet incorporate vocabulary from science class (e.g. sound travelsthrough hollows, and some solids are hollow).

Another reason for Victoria's explanation that string was a poor conductor of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

THINKING ABOUT SOUND 209

sound could lie with her perception of the physical appearance of the string. Victoriareasoned,

[It is hard to believe that vibrations go through a string because] the string is sonarrow. The string is so skinny.

When I asked Victoria what would convince her to believe that vibrations could travelthrough a string, she answered that if a scientist told her that information, then shewould believe. These comments reveal that Victoria found some aspects of theteacher's science to be so amazing and counterintuitive that the science wasunbelievable. Additionally, the teacher's statement that sound travels better throughsolids such as string was not borne out by Victoria's personal observations of yellingthrough a tin-can telephone, and this probably enhanced Victoria's feelings ofdisbelief.

In this example, Victoria thought that she would only believe if a scientistcorroborated what the teacher had presented. This implies that Victoria would bewilling to mentally accept the concept because of the authority associated with ascientist, but it still does not assure us that Victoria would feel a sense of certainty aboutthe concept, or whether she would abandon her own personal explanation of theconcept. This suggests that as children construct meanings for the science, they mayjudge, evaluate, and modify the teacher's science, and this process of deliberationinvolves making observations, generating links, judging the believability of theconcept, and formulating meanings which seem to provide a satisfactory explanation.Sometimes these explanations may be influenced by the child's perception ofauthoritative sources of information, and we can wonder if children who are taught athome to listen to adults and accept the authority of adults might be more prone to (a)recall and repeat the teacher's science; or (b) supplant their own constructed meaningswith the teacher's science; or (c) retain a science which they believe, and developanother science which they use for science tests and quizzes.

Modifying existing ideas

In addition to children being willing to modify the teacher's science, there werenumerous instances when the children modified or expanded upon their own existingideas. During her initial interview regarding her prior ideas about sound, a girl namedChrista claimed that her ability to hear through a solid depended upon the thickness ofthe solid. Then, during one lesson, she watched a film in which a boy struck a railwaytrack with a hammer, and she concluded that although she still thought the thickness ofthe solid was important, the boy's demonstration showed diat "sound goes 10 timesfaster dirough steel." In a subsequent lesson, Christa listened to a tin-can telephoneand observed that she could not hear sounds very well. She then concluded that notonly was the thickness of the solid a factor in her ability to hear, but the sound sheheard was also influenced by the material of which the solid was composed. She was,however, not convinced that sound travelled faster in solids than in air. "Well, forsome reason I think that sound travels faster in air than solids, except for steel, metal,and that sort of stuff."

In this example Christa was aware of the teacher's science (i.e., sound travels fasterin solids), but chose only to modify her existing ideas if the teacher's science was borneout by her own observations. This is reminiscent of Victoria's reaction to the tin-cantelephone in that Victoria's disbelief seemed, in part, to be influenced by the fact thather observations did not support what the teacher had presented in class. This suggests

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

210 BRENDA J. GUSTAFSON

the importance of allowing children to make their own observations, and of how theseobservations affect the children's perceptions of the believability of the science, andaffect the meanings they construct of die teacher's science. For Christa, theopportunity for personal, first-hand observation was an important factor in herwillingness to change or modify her existing ideas. Other factors which seemed toinfluence Christa's reaction to die teacher's science were her personality and herintellectual ability. Christa described herself as a student who assumed responsibilityfor schoolwork and performed well widi little adult supervision. She claimed to feelpersonally motivated to improve on her report card marks and was enrolledin an Academic Challenge [gifted] program at the school. Perhaps Christa's obviousconfidence in her own judgement and abilities influenced her to be more skeptical ofthe teacher's science and to be less likely simply to accept and repeat the teacher'sscience.

During anodier interview, a boy named Bob stated that he no longer agreed withhis initial idea that his ability to hear through a solid was dependent on the diickness ofthe solid. Instead, he now diought diat hearing through a solid'was a function of howhard die solid was hit, and he changed his mind one night at home while he wasthinking about his science classes.

I kept thinking about sound, everydiing we did. Then I got stuck on one diing[the thickness of the solid]. And I thought of it, and I thought of it, and I got dieanswer.

This comment shows diat Bob recognized conflicts or gaps in his understanding of theteacher's science, and dirough reflection and reconsideration he modified his existingidea. Bob's deliberations are close to Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog's (1982)description of the process of change. Bob's comment implies that his involvement inclassroom activities, his motivation to consider die teacher's science, and his concernfor personal coherence between his own ideas and die teacher's science were factorswhich influenced him to modify and change his ideas about sound and solids.

But, why was Bob the child who showed die greatest tendency to strive towardspersonal coherence between his ideas and die teacher's ideas? Answers may lie in Bob'shomelife situation and in Bob's perception of die value of school. Prior to diecommencement of die sound unit, Bob talked about his personality and his philosophyof school. He described himself as being a curious person who liked to understand whydiings happen die way diey do. He believed diat academic attainment would lead to abetter and more successful adult life. Bob's parents emigrated to Canada and have tolddie teacher diey are very appreciative of die school's educational experiences. Theyhave emphasized to Bob diat it is possible to succeed in diis new country dirough hardwork and determination. Bob displayed a consistendy positive attitude towards grade 4and especially valued die role die teacher had in his learning. Bob felt diat die teacher'spresentation of the lesson was key to attaining high test scores and he listenedattentively during all science lessons. Bob's view of how personal coherence was relatedto good marks and was related to eventual success in life could explain in part why Bobseemed more likely to deliberate over his perceived inconsistencies.

In summary, die children's willingness to modify their existing ideas wasinfluenced by a combination of situational, cognitive, and affective factors. In class,their opportunity to participate in die activities, make personal observations,participate in class discussions, and listen to direct instruction affected die meaningsdiey constructed. The children's ability to make accurate observations, perceive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

THINKING ABOUT SOUND 211

connections between activities, and recall and reflect upon classroom events could alsoaffect their constructed meanings. Finally, the children's sense of responsibility,commitment, and even their personal motivation might influence die meanings theyconstructed and their willingness to modify, expand, or perhaps even change theseconstructed meanings.

Sudden change

The majority of the changes and modifications the children made to dieir ideas had atraceable history. This history may have involved their reactions to films,demonstrations, class discussions, and hands-on activities, and included the process ofreflection and deliberation which occurred during and after these classroom events.

There was an instance in this study, however, when a child changed his existingidea and this change did not seem to be preceded by an extended period of reflectionand deliberation. After viewing a film, a boy named Gordon claimed diat he no longeragreed with his initial idea that it was impossible to hear dirough walls because theyblocked sound. When I questioned him about what part of die film had influenced himto change his mind, he replied diat he had just at that instant changed his mind becausehe could hear the janitor vacuuming die hallway outside of die closed door of dieinterview room. Sutton (1980) states diat students "frequendy report such moments ofinsight" (p.H9) and diat this has been called die "penny dropping" or "clicking"phenomenon. Sutton suggests diat any model of change should allow for diisphenomenon, and Gordon's comment supports die idea diat recalling prior ideas anddien examining diese ideas at crucial or opportune moments could also be a factor indie modification or expansion of existing ideas.

After a subsequent lesson, however, Gordon once again claimed to have justchanged his initial idea diat it was impossible to hear dirough walls because dieyblocked sound. This time, he maintained diat die opportunity to listen dirough solidsin die current lesson convinced him diat it was possible to hear dirough solids such aswalls. I wondered if his former claim to change in die previous interview was a fleetingchange, or whedier he simply had forgotten his previous statement. Regardless, thenotion of die existence of opportune moments to change an idea might be an idea worthconsidering for its potential influence on models concerned widi explaining how andwhy children retain, modify, and expand dieir ideas.

Discussion and conclusion

The children's comments show diat factors associated widi die teacher's presentation ofdie lesson and factors associated widi die children diemselves could influence theprocess of change. Prior ideas about die science topic and previous experiences inscience class and odier subject areas affect children's deliberations. Opportunities tomake personal observations which direcdy support die teacher's science are alsoimportant. Children's perceptions of die believability of die science and the existence ofopportune moments also play a role in change. Children's ideas about authoritativesources of information, their hesitancy to adopt the teacher's science, and dieirmotivation towards personal coherence show that homelife situations, personalities,philosophies, and perceptions of science all could influence the ideas childrenconsidered diroughout die sound unit.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

212 BRENDA J. GUSTAFSON

These diverse factors, and the way these factors influenced each child's ideas,suggest that when we talk about how children's ideas change in school classrooms, weare really talking about several different kinds of related changes. The first kind ofchange children displayed in this study resulted in ideas which seemed to be morepermanent and personally understood. These ideas were preceded by steps similar tothose oudined by Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982), and Bob's commentsabout sound and the thickness of solids might be an example of this more meaningfulkind of change.

There were, however, many more examples of change which did not seem to bepreceded by these steps. The dominant kind of change shown in this study was changeswhich were tentative in nature and were characterized by children considering relatedand sometimes opposing ideas. Victoria's comments about hollow spaces and Christa'scomments about sound and solids are examples of these tentative, evolving changes.

These two kinds of changes involved an element of risk in that the children had tobe willing to consider ideas which might be at odds with their original dunking, and bewilling to modify their ideas. Risk, however, was relative to the situation and the childand it was difficult to predict on any given day which child would modify his or herideas, or would modify the teacher's science to fit existing ideas. A further explorationabout how willingness to take risks is involved in understanding science would benefitresearch about die process of change.

Bob's more permanent change and Victoria's and Christa's tentative changes showdiat the children were actively striving for an understanding of the teacher's science.Although this search for understanding was sometimes caused by dissatisfaction withpresent conceptions, it seemed that die children's curiosity and wonder about dieirscience activities were greater catalysts of change. Also, die children's comments showdiat die children were more concerned widi bringing their personal ideas about sciencecloser to the teacher's science dian diey were widi maintaining two different sets ofexplanations or domains.

There was, however, a diird kind of change which was a doubtful or pseudo-change. This pseudo-change was characterized by ideas which the children assumed orborrowed from die teacher's science because they considered die teacher to be anauthoritative source of information, or dicy were concerned about impendingexaminations. This type of change could have resulted in children possessing twodomains of knowledge similar to those described by Solomon (1983). During die 16lessons of diis study, diese pseudo-changes seemed to be in die minority. Furtherstudies, however, could examine whedier there is a greater incidence of pseudo-changeprior to formal assessment.

Anodier kind of change is die sudden change described by Gordon when he hearddie janitor vacuuming in die hallway. It is unclear, however, whedier Gordon'scomments might actually fall widiin die diree kinds of change already described.Further exploration of die phenomenon of sudden change may establish whether diesemoments of insight lead to permanent change or quickly fade from children'sexplanations.

Finally, diis discussion about die children's ideas and die types of change whichoccurred during diis study shows diat children's ideas about topics in science arecomplex and open to many interpretations. For example, on any given day of diestudy, die children's ideas about sound could have been (a) ideas which diey personallyunderstood, or (b) ideas which diey were tentatively considering, or (c) ideas whichdiey had just "borrowed" from the teacher's presentation. Simply, the ideas which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

THINKING ABOUT SOUND 213

could have been listed and referred to as Children's Alternative Ideas About Sound, wouldnot have been an accurate reflection of the children's personal and final understandingof sound. Therefore, although lists of children's ideas may be interesting to read, thelists should not be presented as containing ideas which children necessarily understandin a meaningful way, and the lists should not be used to indicate failure of currentteaching practices. Instead, the variety of children's ideas show the complex, intelligentweb of ideas which children consider and modify during their classroom scienceexperience.

Ideas for future research

This study shows that simply describing and cataloguing children's ideas does notbegin to do justice to the complexity of children's ideas. Also, current models ofconceptual change, like the interpretations presented in this study, are only in theprocess of attempting to accommodate the range of children's thinking.

Studies which are classroom based and designed to elicit children's ideas aboutscience, and to probe children's own comments about their thinking, would be usefulin adding to our understanding of the complexity of children's drought processes. Inparticular, issues in need of further study and clarification include:

1. assessing children's experiences outside of science classrooms as these exper-iences might well play a large role in how children change and modify theirideas about science;

2. attempting to evaluate the status of children's changing ideas; and3. exploring how caring about a science topic, willingness to take risks, locus of

control, and personal belief systems might affect the kinds of changes whichchildren identify.

References

Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1984). Children's preconceptions and content-area textbooks. In G. G.Duffy, L. R. Roehler, & J. Mason, (Eds.), Comprehension instructions: perspectives and suggestions(pp. 187-201). New York: Longman.

Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin,Candy, P. C. (1982). Personal constructs and personal paradigms: elaboration, modification, and

transformation. Interchange, 13(4), 56-69.Claxton, G. L. (1984). Teaching and acquiring scientific knowledge. In T. Keen, & M. Pope, (Eds.), Kelly in

the classroom: educational applications of personal construct psychology. Montreal: Cybersystems.Claxton, G. L. (1986). The alternative conceiver's conceptions. Studies in Science Education, 13, 123-130.Donaldson, M. (1978). Children's minds. New York: Norton.Driver, R. (1981). Pupil's alternative frameworks in science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(1),

93-101.Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Student's thinking and the learning of science: a constructivist view. School

Science Review, 67(240), 443-456.Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of

students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.), (1985). Children's ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open

University Press.Gunstone, R. F., Champagne, A. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1981). Instruction for understanding: a case study.

Australian Science Teacher Journal, 27(3), 27-32.Hewson, P.W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science

Education, 3(4), 383-396.Hewson, P.W., & A'Beckett Hewson, M.G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change

and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13(1), 1-3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

214 THINKING ABOUT SOUND

Johnson, J.K., & Howe, A. C. (1978). The use of cognitive conflict to promote conservation acquisition.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 75(4), 239-247.

Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.Maslow, A. H. (1966). The psychology of science. South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions.Osbome, R.J. (1985). Teachers of science as educational researchers: the learning in science projects.

Australian Science Teachers Journal, 31(2), 14-21.Osbome, R.J., Bell, B.F., & Gilbert, J.K. (1983). Science teaching and children's views of the world.

European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 1-14.Osbome, R.J., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: the implications of children's science. Auckland:

Heinemann.Osbome, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: a generative process. Scan Education, 67(4),

489-508.Osborne, R.J., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science

education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59-87.Pines, A. L. (1980). Protocols as indicators of cognitive structure: a cautionary note. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, i7(4), 351-362.Pope, M. L., & Gilbert, J. (1983). Personal experience and the construction of knowledge in science. Science

Education, 67(2), 193-203.Pope, M.L., & Keen, T. R. (1981). Personal construct psychology and education. London: Academic.Posner, G.J., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). The clinical interview and the measurement of conceptual change.

Science Education, 66(2), 195-209.Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific

conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.Rowell, J .A. , & Dawson, C.J. (1985). Equilibration, conflict and instruction: a new class-oriented

perspective. European Journal of Science Education, 7(4), 331-344.Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University

Press.Smith, S.J. (1987). Seeing a risk. Phenomenology and Pedagogy, 5(1), 63-75.Solomon, J. (1983). Learning about energy: how pupils think in two domains. European Journal of Science

Education, 5(1), 49-59.Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education: Volume II. Design overview and general findings.

Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for Instructional Research and CurriculumEvaluation.

Sutton, C.R. (1980). The learner's prior knowledge: a critical review of techniques for probing itsorganization. European Journal of Science Education, 2, 107-120.

White, R. T. (1979). Achievement, mastery, proficiency, competence. Studies In Science Education, 6, 1-22.Wittrock, M.C. (1986). Students' thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on

Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 299-314). New York: Macmillan.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

06:

08 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014