Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-06T17:00:01.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 5 - Conceptual Change and Misconceptions in Engineering Education

Curriculum, Measurement, and Theory-Focused Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Ruth A. Streveler ,
Shane Brown ,
Geoffrey L. Herman  and
Devlin Montfort
Edited by
Aditya Johri  and
Barbara M. Olds
Ruth A. Streveler
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Shane Brown
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
Geoffrey L. Herman
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Devlin Montfort
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
Aditya Johri
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Recent research has shown that many students continue to understand phenomena in simplified or unproductive ways, even after those understandings are directly contradicted in educational settings (Hake, 1998; Miller et al., 2006). In the context of engineering education, many engineering graduates still do not understand the foundational concepts of solid and fluid mechanics, physics, thermodynamics, digital logic, or other fields. The study of conceptual change and misconceptions is one attempt to understand and address this issue.

Because this field of study is fractious and diverse, we briefly establish some shared vocabulary and understanding of the fundamental processes underlying conceptual change and misconceptions. The following section introduces three primary theories of conceptual change: curriculum, measurement, and theory-focused efforts in engineering education. The chapter concludes with a brief summary and discussion of future directions for research.

We must define conceptual understanding somewhat carefully for our terminology to be useful across the various theoretical frameworks discussed in this chapter. An individual’s conceptual understanding of a topic is the collection of his or her concepts, beliefs, andmental models, where the following definitions apply:

  • Concepts are pieces or clusters of knowledge, for example, “force,” “mass,” “causation,” and “acceleration.”

  • Beliefs Concepts are pieces or clusters of knowledge, for example, “force,” “mass,” “causation,” and “acceleration.”

  • Mental models are groups of meaningfully related beliefs and concepts that allow people to explain phenomena and make predictions; for example, an expert dynamics instructor would use her mental model of Newtonian physics to predict an object’s motion.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research , pp. 83 - 102
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). “Pluto has been a planet my whole life!” Emotions, attitudes, and conceptual change in elementary students learning about Pluto's reclassification. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 529–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S., & Lewis, D. (2010). Student understanding of normal and shear stress and deformations in axially loaded members. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Montfort, D., & Findley, K. (2007). Student understanding of states of stress in mechanics of materials. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Montfort, D., & Hildreth, K. (2008). An investigation of student understanding of shear and bending moment diagrams. In Aung, W., Mecsi, J., Moscinski, J., Rouse, I., & Willmot, P. (Eds.), Innovations 2008: World innovations in engineering education and research (pp. 81–101). Redding, CT: Begell House.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In Limón, M. & Mason, L.. (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 1–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In Limón, M. & Mason, L. (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 29–60). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird's eye view of ‘pieces’ vs ‘coherence’ controversy. In Vosniadou, S. (Ed.),Handbook of conceptual change research (pp. 35–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Downing, S. M. (2006). Twelve steps for effective test development. In Downing, S. M. & Haladyna, T. M. (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gilbert, J. (1995). The role of models and modeling in some narratives in science learning. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halldén, O., Haglund, L., & Strömdahl, H. (2007). Conceptions and contexts: On the interpretation of interview and observational data. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, G. L., & Loui, M. C. (2011). Administering the Digital Logic Concept Inventory at multiple institutions. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
Herman, G. L., Loui, M. C., Kaczmarczyk, L., & Zilles, C. (2012). Discovering the what and why of students’ difficulties in Boolean logic. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 12(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, G. L., Loui, M. C., & Zilles, C. (2011). Students’ misconceptions about medium-scale integrated circuits. IEEE Transactions in Education, 54 (4), 637–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, G. L., Zilles, C., & Loui, M. C. (2012). Flip-flops in students’ conceptions of state. IEEE Transactions in Education, 55 (1), 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, G. L., Zilles, C., & Loui, M. C. (2011). How do students misunderstand number representations? Computer Science Education, 23 (3), 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivarsson, J., Schoultz, J., & Säljö, R. (2002). Map reading versus mind reading: Revisiting children's understanding of the shape of the earth. In Limón, M. & Mason, L. (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 77–99). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaczmarczyk, L., Petrick, E., East, J. P., & Herman, G. L. (2010). Identifying student misconceptions of programming. Paper presented at Forty-First ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, WI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, J., Krause, S., & Baker, D. (2010). A pre-post topic assessment tool for uncovering misconceptions and assessing their repair and conceptual change. Paper presented at ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, S., Decker, J. C., & Griffin, R. (2003a). Using a materials concept inventory to assess conceptual gain in introductory materials engineering courses. Paper presented at ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boulder, CO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, S., Decker, J. C., Niska, J., & Alford, T. (2003b). Identifying student misconceptions in introductory materials engineering classes. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
Krause, S., Kelly, J., Corkins, J., Tasooji, A., & Purzer, S. (2009). Using students’ previous experience and prior knowledge to facilitate conceptual change in an introductory materials course. Paper presented at ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, S., Kelly, J., Kurpius-Robinson, S., & Baker, D. (2010). Effect of pedagogy on conceptual change in repairing misconceptions of differing origins in an introductory materials course. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
Krause, S., & Tasooji, A. (2007). Diagnosing students’ misconceptions on solubility and saturation for understanding of phase diagrams. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Krause, S., Tasooji, A., & Griffin, R. (2004). Origins of misconceptions in a materials concept inventory from student focus groups. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
Limón, M. (2002). Conceptual change in history. In Limón, M. & Mason, L. (Eds.) Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. (pp. 259–289). Dordrecth, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (2002). The delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mayer, R. (2002). Understanding conceptual change: A commentary. In Limón, M. & Mason, L. (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Series in Educational Innovation.Google Scholar
Miller, R. L., Streveler, R. A., Olds, B. M., Chi, M. T. H., Nelson, M. A., & Geist, M. R. (2006). Misconceptions about rate processes: Preliminary evidence for the importance of emergent schemas in thermal and transport sciences. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Miller, R. L., Streveler, R. A., Yang, D., & Santiago Román, A. I. (2011). Identifying and repairing misconceptions in thermal and transport science: Concept inventories and schema training studies. Chemical Engineering Education, 45(3), 203–210.Google Scholar
Minstrell, J. (2001). Facets of students’ thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice. In Crowley, K., Schunn, C. D., & Okada, T. (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications for professional, instructional and everyday science (pp. 415–443). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Montfort, D., Brown, S., & Pollock, D. (2009). An investigation of students’ conceptual understanding in related sophomore to graduate-level engineering and mechanics courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(2), 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montfort, D., Herman, G. L., Streveler, R., & Brown, S. (2012). Assessing the application of three theories of conceptual change to interdisciplinary data sets. Paper presented at ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Seattle, WA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomer, J. L., & Steif, P. S. (2007). Gaining insight into student thinking from their explanations of a concept question. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Research in Engineering Education, Honolulu, HI (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
Norman, D. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In Genter, D. & Stevens, A. (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York, NY: Orion.Google Scholar
Pirtle, Z. (2010). How the models of engineering tell the truth. In van de Poel, I. & Goldberg, D. E. (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda (pp. 95–108). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Purzer, S., Krause, S., & Kelly, J. (2009). What lies beneath the materials science and engineering misconceptions of undergraduate students? Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Säljö, R. (1999). Concepts, cognition and discourse: From mental structures to discursive tools. In Schnotz, W., Vosniadou, S., & Carretero, M. (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 81–90). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Santiago Román, A. (2009). Fitting cognitive diagnostic assessment to the concept assessment tool for statics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Santiago Román, A. I., Streveler, R. A., Steif, P., & DiBello, L. (2010). The development of a Q-matrix for the concept assessment tool for statics. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
Sinatra, G. M. (2002). Motivational, social, and contextual aspects of conceptual change: A commentary. In Limón, M. & Mason, L. (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 77–99). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slotta, J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steif, P. S. (2002a). Courseware for problem solving in mechanics of materials. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Steif, P. S. (2002b). Enriching statics instruction with physical objects. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Steif, P. S. (2004). An articulation of the concepts and skills which underlie engineering statics. Paper presented at ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Savannah, GA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steif, P. S., & Dantzler, J. A. (2005). A statics concept inventory: Development and psychometric analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steif, P. S., & Dollar, A. (2003). A new approach to teaching and learning statics. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
Steif, P. S., Dollar, A., & Dantzler, J. (2005). Results from a statics concept inventory and their relationship to other measures of performance in statics. Paper presented at ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steif, P. S., & Gallagher, E. (2004). Use of simplified FEA to enhance visualization in mechanics. Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
Steif, P. S., & Hansen, M. (2006). Comparisons between performances in a statics concept inventory and course examinations. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(5), 1070–1077.Google Scholar
Steif, P. S., Lobue, J. M., Kara, L. B., & Fay, A. L. (2010). Improving problem solving performance by inducing talk about salient problem features. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streveler, R. A., Miller, R. L., Santiago Román, A. I., Nelson, M. A., Geist, M. R., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Using the “assessment triangle” as a framework for developing concept inventories: A case study using the thermal and transport concept inventory. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27 (5), 1–17.Google Scholar
Taber, K. S. (2001). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner's conceptions: A typology of learning impediments. Educational Studies, 27(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, K. S. (2004). Learning quanta; Barriers to simulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89, 94–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosniadou, S. (2007). The conceptual change approach and its reframing. In Vosniadou, S., Baltas, A., & Vamvakoussi, Z. (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, Z., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In Vosniadou, S. (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×