You are on page 1of 22

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING

VOL. 40, NO. 6, PP. 585 – 603 (2003)

Development of an Instrument for Measuring Cognitive Conflict
in Secondary-Level Science Classes

1

2

2

Gyoungho Lee, Jaesool Kwon, Sang-Suk Park, Jung-Whan Kim,
Hyeok-Gu Kwon,2 Hac-Kyoo Park3
1

2

2

Department of Physics Education, College of Education, Shilim-dong, Kwanak-gu,
Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea

Department of Physics Education, Korea National University of Education, Kangnae-myun,
Chongwon-gun, Chungbuk 363-791, Korea
3

Department of Physics, Woosuk University, Cheon-ju, Cheonbuk 565-701, Korea
Received 28 June 2001; Accepted 14 August 2002

Abstract: Based on conceptual change theory, cognitive conflict is known as an important factor in
conceptual change even though there are still questions about its positive and negative effects on science
learning. However, there is no reliable method by which to assess the cognitive conflict students
experience in their learning. The purpose of this research was to develop an instrument for measuring
secondary students’ cognitive conflict levels as they learned science. The results of this study indicate
that our instrument is a valid and reliable tool for measuring cognitive conflict levels. Factor analysis
supported the model that cognitive conflict consists of four constructs: recognition of an anomalous
situation, interest, anxiety, and cognitive reappraisal of the conflict situation. Implications for instruction
and possibilities for future research are discussed.
2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 40:
585 – 603, 2003

Cognitive conflicts have long been a part of psychological theories of cognitive change
(Cantor, 1983). Despite many shifts of emphasis, the Piagetian account of development has
always considered the concept of cognitive conflict, or the internal experience of opposing
contradictions, to be absolutely central in cognitive development. The concept figured in
Piaget’s earliest writings, and Piaget (1985) developed it into the equilibration model
describing inner self- regulation (Roy & Howe, 1990).
Cognitive conflict is a perceptual state in which one notices the discrepancy between one’s
cognitive structure and the environment (external information), or among the different

Contract grant sponsor: Brain of Korea 21 Project (Korean Ministry of Education).
Correspondence to: G. Lee; E-mail: ghlee@snu.ac.kr
DOI 10.1002/tea.10099
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

58
6

INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING
LEE ET AL.
COGNITIVE CONFLICT

58
6

components (e.g., the conceptions, beliefs, substructures and so on) of one’s cognitive structure
(Lee & Kwon, 2001).
Researchers have employed diverse terminology according to their research concerns when
they have explained a cognitive conflict situation. Thus, there are many terms with meanings
similar to cognitive conflict that have been used by various researchers. For instance,
Smedslund (1961) used the word equilibration as Piaget (1985) defined it. He argued that
equilibration may be similar to Festinger’s cognitive dissonance or Heider’s balance
mechanisms. Hewson and Hewson (1984) used the term conceptual conflict because they
believe that it is profitable to consider learning from an epistemological point of view, and
that ‘‘conceptual conflict’’ reflects this point of view more adequately than does ‘‘cognitive
conflict.’’
In psychology research, many researchers have tried to answer the question, ‘‘How does
cognitive conflict affect the learning process?’’ According to Piaget’s theory (1967, 1980),
when a child recognizes cognitive conflict (disequilibrium), this recognition motivates him or
her to attempt to resolve the conflict. Piaget called the process of resolving conflict
‘‘equilibration.’’ According to him, equilibration refers to the process of self-regulation that
maintains a balance between ‘‘assimilation’’ and ‘‘accommodation.’’
Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory resembles Piaget’s theory (Misiti & Shrigley,
1994). Festinger (1957) suggested that the perception of inconsistency among an individual’s
cognitions generates psychological discomfort or cognitive conflict (his term, cognitive
dissonance) and that this aversive state motivates individuals to attempt to resolve the
dissonance. Berlyne (1960, 1963,
1965) said that conceptual conflict has high arousal potential, motivating the learner to attempt
to resolve it by seeking new information or by trying to reorganize the knowledge he or she
already has.
Among recent motivation theorists, Keller (1984)’s Attention, Relevance, Confidence,
and Satisfaction (ARCS) model refers to the relation between cognitive conflict and motivation. Keller (1987) argued that attention, as one of elements of motivation, is aroused when
students experience cognitive conflict (his terms, incongruity and conflict). Biggs (1990)
argued that inquiry methods of teaching should either draw on existing interests or present
students with baffling demonstrations or paradoxes to arouse their motivation. The baffling
demonstrations or paradoxes are similar to the anomalous data that lead students to
experience cognitive conflict. Biggs said that if students’ interest can be aroused, deep
learning is likely to result.
Based on epistemology, Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) assumed that students
will not change alternative theories unless they experience cognitive conflict that challenges
their current conceptions: ‘‘If taken seriously by students, anomalies provide the sort of
cognitive conflict (like a Kuhnian state of crisis) that prepares the student’s conceptual
ecology for an accommodation’’ (p. 224). Although the authors did not explain the detailed
process of conceptual change facilitated by cognitive conflict, they argued that cognitive conflict
is a necessary condition of conceptual change.
Models of conceptual change are based on the critical elements of prior knowledge and
cognitive conflict (Cobern’s words, conceptual conflict) (Cobern, 1995). Since the 1970s,
science researchers have found that most students begin to learn science contents with
preconceptions that differ from scientific conceptions (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985;
Kwon & Oh, 1988; Kwon
& Lee, 1993; Pfundt & Duit, 1994). Because of these preconceptions, the students may resist
change. Several researchers have insisted that it is not enough for science instruction simply to
inform students of scientific conceptions. In addition, students need to be convinced that the
scientific conceptions are more intelligible, plausible, and fruitful than their own conceptions
(Posner et al., 1982).

& Bereiter. there are many different types of cognitive conflict: visual conflict. in the associated literature. First. we should consider cognitive conflict beyond the old. Burtis. 1984. 1997). Thus. 1997). they did not assess whether the students really experienced cognitive conflict in their research. 1214). affective reasons are more important than logical / cognitive reasons in students’ learning. for an adequate explanation of the effect of . students’ knowledge development in science is different from knowledge development in the scientific community of scientists. 1997. 1997. 1992) argued that cognitive conflict strategies do not consistently lead to conceptual change. 1998. Harrison. & Treagust. 1995. cold. 1993. view of conceptual change and try to understand it from the new perspectives. Kwon. For example. That is. there are still questions about the effect of cognitive conflict. learning situations are filled with conflicts among students. Strike & Posner. Strike & Posner. Jungwirth. multidimensional views (including interest. Guzzetti & Glass. students frequently do not recognize the conflict and that sometimes the contradictory information can be threatening to students who do not have enough knowledge for resolution of the conflict. between teacher and students. A considerable number of researchers have argued that cognitive conflict has an important role in conceptual change (Druyan. According to these views. Recently. and between what a student presently understands and new information being learned. It is important to give serious attention to the issue of the effectiveness of cognitive conflict in learning. Niaz. Marx. a student often does not change his or her previous knowledge even though he or she is confronted with anomalous data. The researchers developed these types of cognitive conflict and investigated the effects of such cognitive conflict on students’ learning. Pintrich. 1980. Elizabeth & Galloway. Dreyfus. 1997. Other researchers (Dekkers & Thijs. Vosniadou and Ioannides (1998) observed that this dispute about the effect of cognitive conflict in learning science is not resolved: ‘‘ ‘Is cognitive conflict a good strategy to produce conceptual change?’ In order to answer these questions we need further research on the development of knowledge about the physical world and about the learning science’’ (p.. Thorley & Treagust. and social activities) have been considered in conceptual change research (Hynd. However. The researchers just supposed that the students might experience cognitive conflict because they had designed different types of situations that might seem to be contradictory information to students. using cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy has been popular in science education. 1996. 1989. However. as Johnson and Johnson (1979) mentioned. social conflict between peers and between children and adults (Druyan. Venville. there is still little certainty in answering the basic questions ‘‘What is cognitive conflict?’’ ‘‘How do we know if cognitive conflict is actually generated?’’ and ‘‘How can we measure it?’’ Thus. However. 1998). we also need to apply the multidimensional views to the study of the cognitive conflict in conceptual change. They pointed out that even though students’ ideas are confronted with contradictory information through instruction. & Boyle. 1993. Tyson. depending on how they are managed. 1992. there is the possibility of a gap existing between what the researchers expected students to experience and what the students really experienced. for several reasons. kinesthetic conflict. and peer conflict (Chan. individual conflict.Since the 1980s. 1982. Lee. Hashweh. motivation. Posner et al. Sometimes. Stavy & Berkovitz. 1986. 2001). & Eliovitch. 1990. Hewson & Hewson. 1998. Second. a major criticism of most cognitive models of change is that they identify cognitive but not affective factors involved in learning (Sinatra & Dole. Thus. this is a limitation of their research to determine the effects of cognitive conflict on student learning. 1987). Therefore. 1998. Such conflicts are inevitable. For example. Johnson and Johnson observed that conflicts have the potential for producing both highly constructive and highly destructive outcomes.

the cognitive conflict process occurs when a learner (a) recognizes an anomalous situation. To overcome these difficulties. In this research. experimental results obtained by a teacher) as genuine. following Berlyne’s (1970) analysis methods. Thus. This model has three stages: preliminary. For instance. the interview method is time-consuming and difficult to apply to a large number of subjects. the preliminary stage is the stage before cognitive conflict. The levels of cognitive conflict were double-checked by asking students to rate their own cognitive conflict levels. p. and signs of uneasiness and tension. looking back and forth. In addition. 2001). using a predeveloped rating scale. this method needs trained interviewers to ensure consistent scoring. they said a child’s resistance to conceptually advanced implications of training experiences and the resulting alternation between advanced and more immature modes of thought will be manifested in response delays. Lee showed the possibility of quantification of the level of cognitive conflict. interest. they would not experience cognitive conflict. However. and (c) engages in cognitive reappraisal of the situation. In this model. First. when learners recognize that a situation is incongruous with their conceptions. Components such as recognition. The traditional measure used by cognitive psychologists to assess such delays is response latency.. 22) proposed that when cognitive conflict occurred. by replaying the videotaped individual interviews. Therefore. they should be interested in or anxious about this situation. and resolution (Figure 1). it is necessary to develop a simpler but more valid and reliable instrument for classroom testing. In recent research. The researcher and two other panel members rated the levels of cognitive conflict of the students. Response latency was therefore chosen as a second (non-self report) measure of the internal conflict in the present study. internal cognitive conflict) focusing on two topics: degree of uncertainty and response latency. they considered cognitive conflict to be a matter of relieving subject uncertainty related to logical necessity. it would sometimes be evidenced by hesitation. (b) expresses interest or anxiety about resolving the cognitive conflict. Zimmerman and Blom (1983. Thus.cognitive conflict on conceptual change learning. degree of uncertainty was considered an indicator of the level of cognitive conflict in their study. The preliminary stage represents a process in which a student who has belief in a preexisting conception accepts an anomalous situation (e. and anxiety are related to the uncertainty that Berlyne measured as an . Thus. the existence and the levels of cognitive conflict need to be measurable. If students did not have strong confidence in a well-formulated preconception or if they considered the anomalous situation as a deception. we need a paper and pencil test appropriate for students who are learning science to measuring their cognitive conflict. Zimmerman and Blom (1983) assessed cognitive conflict (their words. They chose response latency as the second measure of cognitive conflict based on another traditional measure used by cognitive psychologists. Cognitive Conflict Process Model The cognitive conflict process model was developed to explain the cognitive conflict that occurs when a student is confronted with an anomalous situation that is incompatible with his or her preconception in learning science (Lee & Kwon. In 1983.g. Lee (1998) rated the levels of cognitive conflict of 30 students in a Korean high school through individual interviews. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument that would measure students’ cognitive conflict levels in a secondary school science class. He presented anomalous situations in mechanics and electricity to students. conflict.

. it’s . .Figure 1. Cognitive conflict process model. students may exhibit response latency. . At this moment. but after reassessing his cognitive conflicts. or simultaneous with it. mind stretching. The reappraisal of the cognitive conflict situation is the cause of response latency. A student recognized an anomaly and felt interest and anxiety simultaneously (in a state of cognitive conflict): ‘‘It [the result of the demonstration] is kind of a shock. Then I was able to start thinking and worked it out. . In Movshovitz-Hadar and Hadass (1990). . After experiencing this stage.’’ 2.’’ . A student felt anxiety. . I could not wait to hear the solution. we found some examples of the cognitive conflict process: 1. indication of cognitive conflict. no . learners would reappraise the cognitive conflict situation to resolve or dismiss it. he escaped the cognitive conflict situation by solving the problem: ‘‘I was threatened in the beginning and controlled it. A student escaped her cognitive conflict situation by giving up solving the problem: ‘‘I was helpless. it’s fun .’’ 3.

her cognitive conflict might be destruc. or experiences a negative feeling (such as frustration or feeling threatened) instead of interest. the cognitive conflict in this situation might be a negligible experience or even a destructive one. Lee (2000) found that students’ learning motivation. or if she does not like to be in a conflict state. the cognitive conflict in this situation might be negligible. exclusion.tive. For example. First. uncertainty. In the resolution stage. Lee. For instance. The results of resolution of this conflict will be expressed as an external response behavior. experiences strong interest and / or appropriate anxiety. if a student does not recognize the anomaly. However. Second. Recently Limo´ n (2001) found that successful applications of the cognitive conflict strategy are closely related to the complexity of variables intervening in the context of school learning and introduced variables that might contribute to inducing a meaningful cognitive conflict (Table 1). A number of studies support this assumption. If a student feels frustrated or threatened instead of becoming interested. 2001) Variables related to the learner Variables related to the social context in which learning takes place Variables related to the teacher Prior knowledge Motivation and interests Epistemologic beliefs (about learning and teaching and about the subject matter to be learned) Values and attitudes toward learning Learning strategies and cognitive engagement in the learning tasks Reasoning abilities Role of peers Teacher – learner relationships Domain-specific subject matter knowledge Motivation and interests Epistemologic beliefs about learning and teaching and about the subject matter taught Values and attitudes toward learning and teaching Teaching strategies Level of training to be a teacher . if a student does not recognize the anomaly or ignores it. and reappraises the cognitive conflict situation deeply. and Lee (2000) investigated the relation between students’ cognitive Table 1 Variables that might contribute to inducing meaningful cognitive conflict (adapted from Limo´ n. rejection. abeyance. ignores it. learning strategies. We can understand why cognitive conflict has the potential for producing either highly constructive or highly destructive outcomes in terms of these components of cognitive conflict. and cognitive reappraisal. Kwon. a learner will try to resolve cognitive conflict in any way possible. or if he does not like to be in a conflict state. students’ diverse characteristics and learning environment factors will affect the cognitive conflict process. and levels of preconceptions affected students’ cognitive conflict in learning physics. The cognitive conflict process model contains two assumptions. Park. reinterpretation. and theory change. Kim. Constructive cognitive conflict can be aroused when a student recognizes an anomaly clearly.The cognitive conflict process model supposes that four components of cognitive conflict comprise the psychological constructs of cognitive conflict: recognition of an anomalous situation. the components of the cognitive conflict will strongly affect the response behavior. anxiety. interest. peripheral theory change. Response behaviors include those behaviors suggested by Chinn and Brewer (1998): ignoring.

] Figure 2. we identified some examples of the cognitive conflict process. We asked them to find cards that represented their thoughts and feelings and to arrange the cards according to the time order in which they thought and felt these things in the cognitive conflict situation. reappraisal of the cognitive conflict situation (hesitation in response). turning his head and thinking for a while. We asked them to express their thoughts and feelings about those situations. & Lee. and I feel futility. The participants were four 10th-grade students from a high school in Korea. we investigated the relationship between cognitive conflict and students’ response types. In our recent research (Kwon. . Based on the results of the students’ preconception tests.conflict and their response behavior in learning high school physics. Student 1: [Arranges the cards. At the beginning of this study. In their study. we developed demonstration kits and preconception tests on mechanics and electric circuit concepts. 2000). Park.trations that would be anomalous situations to each student. From students’ interviews in this research. and anxiety. Interviewer: [Presents a demonstration to Student 1. After this. Following excerpt is a portion of the dialogue in the interview with Student 1. Each student was interviewed individually.] Student 1: [Looks at the demonstration kit and the answer sheet. we presented demons. Kim. interest. Four cards. we gave them cards (Figure 2) that expressed the main constructs of cognitive conflict: recognition of anomaly.] Interviewer: Could you describe your feelings or thoughts now? Student 1: It is little short of a miracle. the four students were pretested on these concepts. they found that anxiety among the components of cognitive conflict had both positive and negative effects on response behavior. I would like to know the reason for the result. Please arrange these cards to reflect the thoughts and feelings you experienced as time went by. Lee. Before the interview. Interviewer: I have made four cards which depict some sorts of feelings and thoughts about this situation.

Until the end of the interview. attention) Being anxious about the anomalous situation (confusion.] Is it related to the principle of a lever? After watching a demonstration that presented a new situation. the cognitive conflict and the problem (suspend attention. Interviewer: Do you think the result of this demonstration is right? Student 1: Yes. Interviewer: Could you explain the result? Student 1: I do not know. Research Procedures Identification of Measurement Components of Cognitive Conflict Based on the cognitive conflict process model. curiosity. the student recognized that the demonstration was an anomalous result. and think it strange. we identified the measurement components of cognitive conflict as (a) recognition of an anomalous situation. etc. causing him to doubt. and focused attention. In the conflict stage. (c) anxiety. think a little longer. be surprised. (b) interest. a student anxious about this situation would show such responses as confusion. think a little longer. because it is an experimental result.59 2 INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING LEE ET AL. agony. and a feeling of oppression. A student interested in this situation would show responses such as heightened interest. a student would reappraise his state to decide whether to suspend the state. he tried to resolve his cognitive conflict. discomfort. curiosity. a student would recognize that his conceptions are inconsistent with the result of the experiment. the psychological state of the student will exhibit interest or anxiety. Table 2 shows the operational definitions of each measurement component of cognitive conflict. Table 2 Operational definitions of measurement components of cognitive conflict Stage Cognitive conflict stage Components Recognition of contradiction Interest Anxiety Cognitive reappraisal of situation Operational Definition Recognizing one’s conceptions are not consistent with the results of the experiment / discourse / textbook. I saw this result for the first time. and (d) cognitive reappraisal of the situation. depression) Reappraising the anomalous situation. COGNITIVE CONFLICT 59 2 Interviewer: Do you have any other feelings or thoughts about the result except these [which were represented in the cards]? Student 1: No. strangeness) Being interested in the anomalous situation (interest. seek more reasonable base) . However. we could see that Student 1’s experience of cognitive conflict was similar to the process proposed in the cognitive conflict process model. surprise. Thus. [Talking aloud. This cognitive reappraisal is related to response latency in decision making and is one of the components that define cognitive conflict. (doubt. He felt futility but showed curiosity and a desire to know the reason. Then. or seek a more reasonable base. In addition.

In the first pilot test. A total of 152 high school students (10th grade).Interview ..Reliability .e.Content validity . On the third pilot test. Miller. The purposes of this step were to examine whether the students understood the questions as intended and to identify biased responses through the students’ Table 3 Summary of pilot test results Pilot Tests First Second Third Participants 152 high school students. Pilot Testing We conducted three pilot tests to revise the test items according to the validity and reliability results of each pilot test.) 88 high school students. six experts majoring in science education assessed content validity. who lived in a medium-size city in Korea. curious. we selected 12 items that could test cognitive conflict (with 3 items for each measurement component of cognitive conflict).Content validity . 1961. ‘‘we saw the results of the demonstration. 10th grade . etc.Reliability Methods Revision and development . MovshovitzHadar & Hadass.Content validity . checking the nuances of the statements. 10th – 11th grades . 1990.) . and attention in separate statements of interest to discriminate among statements more clearly. There are many kinds of cognitive conflict according to the situations in which it occurs. we considered primarily the cognitive conflict that arises from inconsistency between students’ preconceptions and the results of a demonstration or experiment. Thus.Construct validity . participated in the test and were asked to state their reasons for each answer in the blank space provided below each test item. Likewise. 1983) and protocols of the previous research (Lee.’’ In addition to these cognitive conflict test items. 1970. this consideration (i. 1998). Table 3 shows the results for each pilot test. Zimmerman & Blom.Item Selection At the beginning of our research.Reliability 279 high school students.Refinement of questions (making questions clear. We made these examples into statements that could be used in a questionnaire and selected some among them according to the following rules: Does one statement represent one subtest component? Are there clear discriminating differences among the statements? Is the vocabulary in the statements appropriate? For instance.Individual response analysis . we developed six items to measure students’ degree of confidence in their preconceptions and in the genuineness of the anomalous situation because these are preliminary components in the cognitive conflict process. 1990.Refinement of the questions (making the questions clear.Interview . 1944.Construct validity . 1960. we incorporated the words interest. we collected many examples of signs of cognitive conflict by analyzing the previous literature (Berlyne. Smedslund.Construct validity .Remove space left for reason for choice . etc. demonstration or experiment situation) was reflected in all statements of the test items: For instance. checking nuances of statements. we obtained quite a satisfactory result in terms of validity and reliability. When we started to develop the test items. 10th grade .

we devised a test procedure to measure the levels of students’ cognitive conflict in learning science (Table 6). Test Procedures Before we started the pilot tests. problematic questions were restated to make them more clear and present the correct nuances. and the reliability of the test was assessed by calculating Cronbach alpha. For example. The SPSS statistics program was used to calculate the correlations and factor analyses for the three pilot tests. We refer to this test instrument as the Cognitive Conflict Levels test (CCLT).’’ On the other hand.’’ Thus. We selected 279 high school students (10th and 11th grades) representing both genders (148 male. the original item was understood by some students to include two different measurement components of cognitive conflict: interest and reappraisal. A factor analysis of the responses was carried out. different students understood the original statement ‘‘I would like to see the results again’’ in different ways in the first pilot test. After the second pilot test. 15 students were interviewed to explore and clarify the students’ responses. Table 5 shows these test items. A total of 83 high school students (10th grade). First. who lived in a medium-size city in Korea. Through this kind of process.59 4 INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING LEE ET AL. Table 4 shows the 12 test items of the cognitive conflict levels test. other students understood the original sentence as ‘‘I want to reappraise the results. The analysis revealed that some students had a biased interpretation of or misunderstood certain questions. The students were asked to complete both Test II and . participated in the test. we conducted the final test. ‘‘I did not feel oppressed. We analyzed the validity and reliability of this final test. 101 from one small town) for this study. After a brief introduction.’’ 4 ¼ ‘‘very true’’). Some students understood the original sentence as ‘‘I am interested in seeing the results again. In addition to the CCLT. In the second pilot test. One month after the second pilot test. We asked the students not to go on to the next page after finishing Test I. The final items are presented in Tables 4 and 5. we developed test items to measure students’ confidence in their preconceptions and their belief in the genuineness of the demonstration after they had watched it.’’ Among the items associated with anxiety. we developed the final test items for measuring cognitive conflict. All items were on a 5-point Likert scale (0 ¼ ‘‘not at all true. In addition. we presented a demonstration to the students. we removed the blank space because it was determined in the interviews that most students understood the questions as intended. the original item ‘‘I would like to see the results again’’ was changed to ‘‘The results of the experiment were interesting to watch. Students’ responses were analyzed to assess their understanding of each question. 80 from one medium-size city.’’ They thought oppressed was too strong a term and commented that their feeling did not reach this level. the statement ‘‘I feel oppressed’’ was changed to ‘‘I feel depressed’’ because we found in the interviews that depressed was a more appropriate word to explain anxiety in the state of cognitive conflict. among the items of interest. we distributed a packet of three tests and asked the students to complete the test of students’ preconceptions and the strength of their belief in them (Test I) without discussing their answers with other students. Final Items Test Through the pilot tests. 131 female) and three different areas (98 from one metropolis. That is. I just felt depressed. COGNITIVE CONFLICT 59 4 answers. The results are discussed in the Results section below. Some students said. 10 experts majoring in science education assessed content validity.

In these procedures. COGNITIVE CONFLICT 59 5the CCLT after the demonstration. we tested the students’ belief in5 the genuineness of the .59 INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING LEE ET AL.

The result of the demonstration is interesting. The difference between the result and my expectation made me felt strange. Demonstrations For the demonstration. I have a reason for my choice. Watts & Zylbersztajn. The equipment used for the demonstration has defects. The result of the demonstration attracts my attention. The students were asked to describe the expected motion when the block is released (Gunstone. These items have simple structures in terms of physics concepts and contexts (in mechanics and Electromagnetism (E & M). Since I saw the result. 3. I need to find a proper base for explaining the result. 12. I feel depressed. 2. Since I cannot understand the reason for the result. Figure 3 shows the apparatus. Since I cannot solve the problem. Then the block is pulled down so that it is lower than the ball and it is held at this position. 3. COGNITIVE CONFLICT 595 Table 4 Final items of Cognitive Conflict Level Test Measurement Components Recognition of contradiction Interest Anxiety Cognitive reappraisal of situation Test Items 1. 2. two different problem situations were developed: one was a pulley problem and the other was electric bulbs in parallel. regardless of their ages. 8. and abilities. 11. I think my choice is right. The result of the demonstration confuses me. 6. 1986. 1. I have been curious about it. I am uncomfortable. we selected these items because we believed it would be easy for secondary school students to express their ideas about these items with proper confidence. Thus. I observed the picture carefully and understood the sentence. Watts & Zylbersztajn. I will get the same results. It took the participants about 20 minutes to finish the entire test procedure. I had doubts about the reasons. 3. 9. There is a pulley with a tennis ball and a block of wood on each side. When I saw the result. I need to think about the reason for the result a little longer. When I saw the result. We demonstrated the same situation with the result immediately after the students wrote their answers to the problem. Table 5 Test items of belief in preconception and demonstration Measurement Components Test I (belief in preconception) Test II (belief in genuineness of demonstration result) Test Items 1. 2. 10. 1987. Gunstone. I was surprised by it. I observed the demonstration carefully. 5. Previous research (Dupin & Johsua. The ball is at the same level as the block. 1981). I would like to ascertain further whether my idea is incorrect. . respectively). demonstration result (Test II) and their cognitive conflict levels (CCLT). 1981) has shown that secondary school students have their own ideas about these items. 4. If I do the demonstration again. 7.59 5 INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING LEE ET AL. Problem 1 (Pulley). 1986.

85 to . there was a considerably stronger correlation among subtest items in the same construct than between those subtests items and subtest items of other constructs. p. 1987).83. The correlation between the subtest items and the total score varied from . we can see that the 12 subtest items represent four different constructs of cognitive conflict. There are two electric bulbs lit up in parallel in the left figure. indicating a moderate to moderately high degree of association. the switch is turned off so that only one bulb is lit up. In the right figure. and the mean value was . Pulley problem. Figure 4 shows two circuits of electric bulbs in parallel.54 to . Table 7 reports the correlation result for the pulley problem situation. Thus. We used electric bulbs (30 W. 220 V) and a Styrofoam board (60 70 cm) for the demonstration. Content validity coefficients among the experts ranged from . In the correlation result for the electric bulbs in parallel.47 to . The problem is to ask students to predict which bulb (A or B) will be brighter after the switch is turned off in the right figure (Dupin & Johsua.97. indicating a moderate to moderately high degree of Figure 3. the correlation between the subtest items and the total score varied from . They used a 5-stage Likert scale to judge the validity of each item. Results Validity of the Instrument Content validity was assessed by 6 experts (2 professors and 4 graduate students).Table 6 Testing procedure Procedure Distribution Test I Demonstration Test II CCLT Withdrawal Total Purpose To identify students’ preconceptions and their belief To present an anomalous situation To identify the levels of belief in the genuineness of anomalous situation To measure the levels of cognitive conflict Time (min) 5 7 2 1 4 1 20 Problem 2 (Electric Bulbs in Parallel).79. Also.76. 1994.93. 134). The correlation among the subtest items in the same construct varied from . Correlations among the answers for the subtest items and the total of the answers were analyzed and interpreted based on guidelines for interpretation of the strength of the correlation coefficients (Ravid. .54 to .

varying from .04 to . 3 subtests of recognition on the second factor.73% of the total variance. indicating a comparatively high degree of association (ranging from . ranging from . and the fourth factor included the 3 recognition subtests. Similar to the results in the pulley situation.48. and then computation of a rotated factor matrix by assigning four factors. These four factors completely coincided with the four measurement components that were presupposed to be the constructs of cognitive conflict.60 is acceptable . The correlation among subtest items in the same construct was a moderately stronger correlation.31% of the total variance. and 3 subtests of anxiety on the fourth factor. the third factor included the 3 anxiety subtests. Table 9 shows the values determined for each subtest as well as for the total test. was indicated.40 to . commencing with analysis of the principal components and extent of communality. A comparatively high degree of association. the 12 subtests in the CCLT were subjected to a factor analysis again. In the other situation (electric bulbs in parallel). 59 7 Electric bulbs in parallel problem. these results explained 72. Table 8 shows the results of the factor analysis of the CCLT in the pulley problem situation. Thus. 3 subtests of reappraisal on the third factor. the degree of association between each subtest in other components ranged from . the degree of association between each subtest in other components ranged from .62 to . The analysis found that 3 subtests of interest were loaded on the first factor. On the other hand.63 to .87). from the two correlation results applied to two problem situations. compared with the correlation between the subtest items of other constructs. we found that the 12 subtest items represented four constructs of cognitive conflict.50 to . the second factor included the 3 reappraisal subtests.04 to . The outcome was that 3 interest subtests were loaded on the first factor.INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING COGNITIVE CONFLICT Figure 4. and then to computation of a rotated factor matrix by assigning four factors. Reliability of the Instrument Reliability of the cognitive conflict test items of the CCLT was assessed by calculating the internal consistency values using Cronbach alpha. commencing with analysis of the principal components and extent of communality. On the other hand.86. The results of this factor analysis in the electric bulb in parallel problem were similar to these in Table 8. When we consider that in exploratory research a modest reliability of . These four factors completely coincided with the four measurement components proposed as the constructs of cognitive conflict and explained 77. Factor Analysis The scores of the 12 subtest items in the CCLT were subjected to a factor analysis.79. association.44.

p.69 . 1994. .INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING COGNITIVE CONFLICT 59 8 (Ravid. the final instrument showed moderate reliability in the subtest (Cronbach a .91).87) and in the total test (Cronbach a: . 252).86 .

75** .76** — .71** .41** .74** . *p < .55** .44** .60** — .59 8 Table 7 Correlations among subtest items and total score in pulley problem An1 An2 An3 Rea1 Rea2 Rea3 Re1 Re2 Re3 In1 In2 In3 Total An1 An2 An3 Rea1 Rea2 Rea3 Re1 Re2 Re3 In1 In2 In3 — . Rea ¼ reappraisal.57** .55** .33** .49** .29** .47** .64** — .63** — .59** .53** .58** .69** .31** .41** .42** .53** .48** — .48** .45** .44** .28** .53** .01.75** .45** .31** — . .45** .29** .54** .31** .25** .60** — . An ¼ anxiety.40** .62** .27** .73** .42** — .05.37** . **p < .13* .39** .51** .53** .44** .32** .41** .54** .76** Note.65** .24** .29** .47* .59** .47** .36** .46** .45** .83** — .77** .79** .45** .77** — .53** — .25** . Re ¼ recognition.19** .51** .44** .54** .47* . LE E ET A L.62** .63** .55** . In ¼ interest.

81 . interest.86 .15 .86 in the total test.21 .23 . these results support the expectation that the CCLT is a reliable instrument for measuring students’ levels of cognitive conflict in a paper and pencil test.76 .80 .38 . ‘‘When teachers attempt to use anomalous data to foster conceptual change.93.21 .78 .72 .41 . A teacher could use the framework of alternative responses to try to Table 9 Reliability of the instrument (CCLT) Subtest Test Item Problems Pulley (Cronbach a) Electric bulbs in parallel (Cronbach a) Recognition Interest Anxiety Reappraisal Total Test . they may fail because students have several different ways to respond to the data other than theory change.01 .33 .85 . The reliability coefficients of the CCLT were over .75 .04 . all the items of the CCLT appeared to be functioning to discriminate among various levels of cognitive conflict.13 .28 .14 .34 Extraction method: Principal component analysis Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization .21 .27 .02 .79 .opment and revision of the first two pilot tests.24 . Chinn and Brewer (1998) said.19 .69 .25 .14 . After the process of devel.85 to .72 .12 .15 .81 .81 .02 .07 .26 . anxiety. Therefore.86 . respectively.86 .69 in the subtest items and .71 .13 . and cognitive reappraisal of the cognitive conflict situation.27 .63 Conclusions and Educational Implications In this study. and the mean value was . Factor analysis supported the expectation that there were four factors in the CCLT and these factors completely coincided with the four components that were presupposed to be constructs of cognitive conflict.97.91 .80 . a moderate level of correlation was found in identifying the components of cognitive conflict: recognition of anomalous situation.33 .39 . As predicted by the cognitive conflict process model.59 59 9 INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING LEE ET AL.27 .20 .19 . COGNITIVE CONFLICT 9 8 Table Rotated component matrix (pulley problem) 1 Interest2 Interest3 Interest1 Recognition2 Recognition1 Recognition3 Reappraisal2 Reappraisal3 Reappraisal1 Anxiety1 Anxiety2 Anxiety3 Component 2 3 4 .85 .08 .44 . results indicate that the CCLT instrument is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring secondary students’ cognitive conflict in science class.38 .35 .87 . The validity of the CCLT was also supported by the results of the construct validity test by 6 experts (2 professors and 4 graduate students who were majoring in science education). The content validity coefficients among the experts ranged from .79 .

establishing the validity of an instrument is an ongoing process. We address a number of issues for future research. Thus. some researchers used the CCLT to measure the cognitive conflict levels of Korean students who were confronted with anomalous explanations in reading a science text [Yoo (2000). Moreover. Third. 2001).. R. from confronting anomalous data to a final response to the data through decision making. with 670 high school students]. Second. and so forth. lab in science. N. it will be helpful for a teacher to understand how students experience anomalous data. F. Bell.. with 788 middle school students. which Chinn and Brewer identified as taxonomy. verbal. it is important to help students have meaningful learning experiences. This research was supported by a grant from the Brain of Korea 21 Project (Korean Ministry of Education). even though there is a limitation to this study (i. Kim (2000). & Schwartz.e. The authors thank Dr. content-free. Michael E. research about the relations between cognitive conflict and the variables that might affect cognitive conflict is significantly needed.g. the instrument was developed and applied using demonstrations of pulley and electric bulb situations from the physics area). Lederman. e. However. David Treagust and Dr. or hands-on activities in different subject classrooms. By using the CCLT. Lederman. we hope that the CCLT can be used in research and practice to measure the levels of students’ cognitive conflict more precisely. Limo´ n (2001) introduced a number of variables that might contribute to meaningful cognitive conflict (Table 1). Beeth for their comments on earlier version of this article. They want to express sincere appreciation to the anonymous reviewers for their extremely valuable feedback. a teacher can interpret his or her students’ cognitive conflict and be able to make conceptual change more likely. References Abd-El-Khalick. as discussed previously. Like the taxonomy of students’ responses.. Cognitive conflict is a frequent experience of students in their learning inside and outside of class.G. how to recognize and manage cognitive conflict. This could help students develop a deeper understanding of their learning in science.L. how students feel when they experience cognitive conflict. January). and how those experiences are related to their final responses. & Schwartz. and we anticipate that it will contribute to the recent debate about the educational effects of cognitive conflict.. (2001. etc. cognitive conflict has both constructive (meaningful) and destructive potential.. there is a need for further research focused on validating and refining the CCLT through application of the CCLT to diverse areas. Recently. Bell.600 INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING LEE ET AL. R. COGNITIVE CONFLICT 60 0 anticipate how students might react to anomalous data’’ (p. imaginary. With an understanding of this model. math or history classes. Recently.). that can be applied to measure students’ cognitive conflict in any situation. small-group discussion. Thus. It is incorrect to speak of validity as ever being established in the once-and-for-all sense of the word (Abd-ElKhalick. we can investigate the relation between cognitive conflict and these variables. Thus. Finally. we can use the CCLT to understand students’ cognitive conflict in different educational settings and contexts (lecture. by using the CCLT. 649). We can use the CCLT to understand how to induce meaningful cognitive conflict. Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ . the results of the CCLT or even particular items of it can provide a resource for classroom discussion about how to interpret anomalous data. Limo´ n (2001) found that the successful application of cognitive conflict strategy is closely related to the complexity of variables intervening in the context of school learning. the CCLT is composed of general statement-type items. First. The cognitive conflict process model provides a theoretical explanation of the whole process. Moreover.

229 – 249. 8. P.Z. (1983). Biggs.J. The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. (1996). Gunstone. 25. Carmichael’s manual of child psychology. CA: Stanford University Press. G. A. 35 – 49. Druyan. J. Chinn. Conceptions of French pupils concerning electric circuits: Structure and evolution. American Journal of Physics. P.. Druyan. and Piaget: Comments on Zimmerman and Blom’s ‘‘Toward an empirical test of the role of cognitive conflict in learning.). difficulties. D.).F. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Teaching for desired learning outcomes. In N. 287 – 302. 791 – 806. Conceptual links between cognitive acceleration through science education and motivational style: A critique of Adey and Shayer. 28.E. Effect of the kinesthetic conflict on promoting scientific reasoning. Hashweh. England: Open University Press. Hewson. Psychology: A study of science. & Eliovitch. Costa Mesa. 939 – 981). L. C. Curiosity and education. D. Handbook of educational ideas and practices (pp. (1986). New York: McGraw-Hill. Guzzetti. Science Education. International Journal of Science Education. S. (1986).. R. A comparison of four types of cognitive conflict and their effect on cognitive development. C. Instructional Science. Burtis. Student understanding in mechanics: A large population survey. (1984). 24. 4. J. (1957). 3. Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Mussen (Ed. Berlyne. W. Conflict.N. 116 – 159. 1083 – 1099. Children’s ideas in science.D. W. 1 – 13. Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cantor. 555 – 569. Berlyne. Toward an explanation of conceptual change. C. 5. vol. Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Elizabeth. Paper presented at the 2001 AETS annual meeting. Dekkers. D. (1997). M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. New York: Wiley. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. and curiosity. Cobern. L.. 15.L. and problems. 1 (pp. 623 – 654.V. Reading Research Quarterly. & Johsua.E.H. (1995). Science education as an exercise in foreign affairs. 35. Conflict. D. (1965).A. 34.M. 39 – 53..60 1 INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING LEE ET AL.F. (2001). European Journal of Science Education. Science & Education. Milton Keynes. R. M. D. & Hewson. Entwistle (Ed. & Glass. Stanford. Driver. S. An empirical test of a taxonomy of a responses to anomalous data in science. New York: McGraw-Hill. 18. Berlyne. Dreyfus.). & Bereiter. International Journal of Behavioral Development. (1997). 82. B. (1998).’’ Developmental Review. E. G. J.W. R. COGNITIVE CONFLICT 601 conceptions of nature of science. learning. arousal.J. 226 – 236. Jungwirth. 1 – 40. 13. S. CA. Chicago: Rand-McNally.. Berlyne. Making productive use of students’ initial concept of force.E. (1990). Children’s reasoning and thinking.G. 681 – 693).. G. (1993). 74. A. Cognition and Instruction. Festinger. .E.W. & Tiberghien. (1987).). (1970). & Brewer. Dupin. E. Guesne. (1960). In S. 692 – 696. (1990). (1963). Vol. Applying the ‘‘cognitive conflict’’ strategy for conceptual change: Some implications. Chan. 55. Learning and the educational process. In J. Krumboltz (Ed. Exploratory and epistemic behavior. In P. (1998). New York: Routledge. (1985). & Galloway. 31 – 51. & Thijs. Koch (Ed.

J.S. Y. Review of Educational Research. Unpublished master’s thesis. Korea. R. (1988).S. (2001). Misiti. In J. Miller. (1994) The role of cognitive dissonance on the science attitudes of middle school students. Kim. Limo´ n. vol. Proceeding of the International Conference on Science Education: Globalization of Science Education. J. 17: Staff development and career updating. Lee. ED 453083). G. April).G. G. On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. COGNITIVE CONFLICT 60 2 Hynd..). (1998). J. Korea. Experimental studies of conflict. Paper presented at National Association for Research in Science Teaching. (1944). Hunt (Ed.. Kwon. Korea National University of Education. R.602 INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING LEE ET AL. C. 310 – 316 (written in Korean). J. Korea. Chungbuk. 1 – 7. M. Kim. N.E. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. May). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. D. Physics Teaching.. The effect of cognitive conflict on students’ conceptual change in physics. J. J. In B. Seoul. & Kwon. Chungbuk. Research Report on Subject Education RR98-VI-11. Korea National University of Education. Hynd (Eds.W. pp. Lee. 8. Conceptual change in a high school physics class. A cognitive model of conceptual change in science learning. J. Kwon. 11. & Lee. The effects of cognitive conflict. H.L. Lee. Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. J. (2000).M. Lee. Kwon.J. 7. CA. 57 – 72 (written in Korean). & Johnson. J. The relationship between the characteristics of cognitive conflict and response to anomalous situations when learning science.T. (1997. Chungbuk. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Perspectives on conceptual change (pp. H. (1998). H.J. & Hadass. (1979). 13. Students’ behavior patterns confronted with cognitive conflict situations. Unpublished master’s thesis. F. New York: Ronald. (1990). Proceedings of 2001 AETS Annual meeting. J. January). (2000. R.M.S. 49. 27 – 36). Johnson. & Lee.). Development and application of cognitive conflict level tests for logical arguments in high school. 309 – 325. Kwon. Personality and the behavior disorders V 1. G. 431 – 465). 26. and learning strategies on high school students’ conceptual changes in physics. Y. Korean Physics Society (written in Korean). The index of the stability of misconceptions. Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. learning motivation. The necessity of cognitive conflict strategy in science teaching. (1984). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Korea. Y. Aspects of educational technology. The sources of students’ misconception about Newton’s third law.).. Y. Lee. Korea National University of Education. & Oh. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education.S. The analysis of the relationship between cognitive conflict characteristics (levels and patterns) and response patterns of students confronted with anomalous situation in learning science.M. & Shrigley. Learning and Instruction. 1 – 9. G. (2000). Shaw & A. (1990). N. Movshovitz-Hadar. (pp. K. Chungbuk. 51 – 70. (1989). ED 404109). Lee. Park.. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education.S. The use of the ARCS model of motivation in teacher training. Preservice education of math teachers using . J. Keller. (1987). (2000). Kim. G. Kwon. NJ: Erlbaum. New Orleans. 357 – 380.J. Keller. (2001. Costa Mesa. Korea National University of Education... Korea. Ministry of Education in Korea (written in Korean). J.. Kwon. (1993). Mahwah. Performance & Instruction. & Lee. Trott (Eds. What do you know about students’ cognitive conflict: A theoretical model of cognitive conflict process. London: Kogan Page. In K. Park.J. Guzzetti & C.L.

COGNITIVE CONFLICT 603 paradoxes. 21.INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING LEE ET AL. 60 3 . 265 – 287. Educational Studies in Mathematics.

J. Organic selection and phenocopy. G. 63. 167 – 199. Mahwah. & Boyle.J. R. 32. Hewson. 360 – 365. A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. & Gertzog. Science Education.).W. Strike. Case studies in conceptual change: A social psychological perspective. Perspectives on conceptual change (pp. Students’ alternative framework and science education (4th ed) Kiel. Philosophy of science.. Germany: IPN. (1985). Strike. Development and application of cognitive conflict level tests for logical arguments in middle school. From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. (2000). B. (1998). Piaget. . 20. 2. M. 203 – 216. C. IL: University of Chicago Press. In D.). Smedslund. (1983). (1994). Piaget. & Howe. International Journal of Science Education. and educational theory and practice (pp. (1961). Tyson.A.F. Effects of cognitive conflict. K. K. The mental development of the child. Adaptation and intelligence. A. European Journal of Social Psychology. Developmental Review. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.M. Sinatra. 9. (1980).J.W. Duschl & R. 64. IL: University of Chicago Press. D. Marx. G.N. Ravid. Pfundt. A survey of some children’s ideas about force. Zimmerman. G.M. G. 18 – 38. & Berkovitz. J. socio-cognitive conflict and imitation on children’s socio-legal thinking. H. Harrison. Chicago.W.J. Bibliography. W. C. J. 1213 – 1230. R. 20. 147 – 176). A. Review of Educational Research.A. D. 211 – 227.M. International Journal of Science Education. R. Pintrich. & Treagust. J.. 66. Science Education. D. R. J. L.. D. R. 39 – 53).J. Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems: A dialectic-constructivist perspective. Elkind (Ed. NJ: Erlbaum. & Treagust. 679 – 692. In R. Science Education. (1982). P. Venville. Posner. Unpublished master’s thesis.. (1967). Thorley. & Duit. (1987). New York: Random House. Roy. Korea National University of Education. 81. (1994). Conflict within dyadic interaction as a stimulant for conceptual change in physics. B.). Practical statistics for educators. Guzzetti & C.A. MD: University Press of America.R. Chungbuk. & Dole. In B. & Zylbersztajn. C. A revisionist theory of conceptual change. Chicago. Accommodation of a scientific conception. (1998). The acquisition of conservation of substance and weight in children. Six psychological studies.J. & Blom. Piaget.J. 387 – 404.A.. Watts. (1997).A. S. Toward a theory of conceptual change.E. The equilibration of cognitive structure: the central problem of intellectual development. Cognitive conflict as a basis for teaching quantitative aspects of the concept of temperature. (1995). (1990). & Poser. A. (1992). Yoo. Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.. Stavy. Physics Education.C.INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING COGNITIVE CONFLICT 603 Niaz. J. (1981). Toward an empirical test of the role of cognitive conflict in learning. Vosniadou. 3. & Ioannides. 959 – 970. 156 – 160. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 241 – 252. Hynd (Eds.. (1980).G. cognitive psychology.F. 16.. P. N. Hamilton (Eds. Albany: State University of New York Press.A. (1993). Korea.