A topic in Learners’ conceptions and thinking
People form a wide range of concepts. One of the characteristics of our concepts is that they are embedded in a network of associations (read about concepts here) and take their meaning in part from the links formed between them.
As Vygotsky pointed out – our concepts are not like peas loose in a bag – that is, they are not simply discrete entities which can be accessed independently. So we can talk of a conceptual structure built up of different concepts linked together.
We can examine the conceptual structure of a topic (such as evolution, or chemical bonding, or fluids) and consider which concepts are used in the topic and how they link together. Indeed, such an analysis may be a sensible activity for a teacher before teaching a new topic.
Concept mapping
One way of representing a conceptual structure is to draw a concept map:
Concepts take their meaning within a network of other concepts.
Figure from The Role of Conceptual Integration in Understanding and Learning Chemistry
Of course, such a representation cannot fully reflect the complexity of the conceptual structure of a scientific topic – they are a form of model. (Read more about concept maps and concept mapping)
Learners’ conceptual structures…
…can also be understood in this way. However, learners’ conceptual structures are likely to be impoverished when compared with the actual conceptual structures of science, or those of their teachers. By comparison, they are likely to have missing concepts, missing links, and indeed some inappropriate links. An inappropriate (or non-canonical) link between concepts is in effect an alternative conception. (Read about alternative conceptions here).
The absence of links a teacher should expect, and may assume, can impede further learning (they can act as ‘fragmentation learning impediments‘*). Links that are inaccurate from a canonical perspective may channel learning in inappropriate directions (they may act as ‘associative learning impediments‘*). (* Read about using diagnostic assessment in the classroom to diagnose such ‘learning impediments‘.)
In general we should encourage students to make imaginative leaps and seek connections between different ideas. Great breakthroughs in science have been based upon such conjectured associations. Moreover, the process of science generally requires scientists to imagine possibilities as a basis for producing hypotheses to test. Creativity is to be welcomed.
However, learners can make unhelpful associations when assuming they are just understanding the teaching as the teacher intended, and then they do not treat that association as a conjecture to be explored and tested out, but just as something they have been taught.
After all, meaningful learning involves the learner making sense of new information by fitting it into existing conceptual structures as a matter of course, and they bring to bear the interpretive resources that seem relevant. Mostly this is an automatic process that does not require deliberation, and making an unhelpful association feels no different to the student than making a canonical association. (This reflects a ‘constructivist‘ view of learning, which is widely accepted. Read more about ‘constructivism’ here.)
In general, terms the conceptual structures of experts are richer than those of novices (e.g., students), not only in the number of concepts embedded in a structure, but also in terms of the integration of concepts through the links between the concepts. (Read about conceptual integration here.) Of course, this is to be expected. As a student progresses through different educational levels, new concepts are added to a structure and existing concepts are nuanced, develop new links, and become better integrated.
A particular issue that has been noticed in some students’ learning is the compartmentalisation of learning into school subjects, and even topics within subjects, so that learners may not only not look for connections between subjects or topics, but may not expect there to be any!
