Alternative Conceptions and Intuitive Rules

Abstract

A major thrust in science education research has been the study of students’ conceptions and reasoning. Many have pointed out the persistence of misconceptions, naive conceptions, alternative conceptions, intuitive conceptions, and preconceptions. Studies have covered a wide range of subject areas in physics, in chemistry, and in biology (Thijs and van den Berg 1995). In view of the large volume of documented instances of alternative conceptions and reasoning, a theoretical framework with explanatory and predictive power seemed to be in order. While most of the previously mentioned studies adapted a content-oriented perspective of alternative conceptions, another approach is suggested by the intuitive rules theory. The intuitive rules theory takes a taskoriented standpoint, addressing the impact of specific task characteristics on learners’ responses to scientific tasks (Stavy and Tirosh 2000). The main claim of this theory is that students tend to provide similar, intuitive responses to various scientific and daily tasks that share some external features. The intuitive rules theory offers four major intuitive rules. Two of these rules (more A–more B; and same A–same B) are identified in students’ reactions to comparison tasks, and two (Everything can be divided and Everything comes to an end) are manifested in students’ responses to processes of successive division. Here we refer briefly to the two comparison rules, whose impact can be seen in students’ responses to a wide variety of situations. Responses of the type more A–more B are observed in many comparison tasks, including classic Piagetian conservation tasks (e.g., conservation of weight, volume, matter), tasks related to intensive quantities (density, temperature, concentration), and other tasks (e.g., free fall). In all these tasks, relationships between two objects (or two systems) that differ in a salient quantity A are described (A1 > A2). The student is then asked to compare the two objects (or systems) with respect to another quantity, B (B1 1⁄4 B2 or B1 B2. We suggest that students’ responses are determined by the specific, external characteristics of the task, which activate the intuitive rulemore A–More B. This tendency is evident in a wide range of ages. For instance, even university students tend to incorrectly predict that a heavy box will hit the ground before a light one. This response is in line with the intuitive rule more A (heavier)–more B (faster). Responses of the type “same A–same B” are observed in many comparison tasks. In all of them the two objects or systems to be compared are equal in respect to one quantity A (A1 1⁄4 A1) and this equality is salient. Yet, these objects or systems differ in another quantity B (B1 is not equal to B2). A common incorrect response to these tasks, regardless of the content domain, is B1 1⁄4 B1 because A1 1⁄4 A1. Megged (in Stavy and Tirosh 2000), for instance, found that when middle school students were presented with two vials containing equal amounts of water and one of these vials was heated, the students tended to incorrectly claim that same A (water)–same B (volume of water). The intuitive rules, which account for many incorrect responses to science tasks, have a predictive power. That is, one could predict how a student will respond to a given task on the basis of external,