In Defense of Chi's Ontological Incompatibility Hypothesis |
| |
| Authors: | James D Slotta |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) University of Toronto jslotta@oise.utoronto.ca |
| |
| Abstract: | This article responds to an article by A. Gupta, D. Hammer, and E. F. Redish (2010 Gupta, A., Hammer, D. and Redish, E. F. 2010. The case for dynamic models of learners' ontologies in physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19: 285–321. Taylor & Francis Online], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar]) that asserts that M. T. H. Chi's (1992 Chi, M. T. H. 1992. “Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science”. In Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Edited by: Giere, R. 129–186. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Google Scholar], 2005 Chi, M. T. H. 2005. Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14: 161–199. Taylor & Francis Online], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar]) hypothesis of an “ontological commitment” in conceptual development is fundamentally flawed. In this article, I argue that Chi's theoretical perspective is still very much intact and that the critique offered by Gupta et al. is itself based on a flawed interpretation of Chi's theory. The purpose of this article is to address that misconception of Chi's work and to clarify her overall theoretical perspective. I begin by reviewing Chi's theory of ontological commitments, making an important comment about her position on the nature of expert conceptualizations. I review the methodological approaches used by J. D. Slotta and M. T. H. Chi (2006 Slotta, J. D. and Chi, M. T. H. 2006. The impact of ontology training on conceptual change: Helping students understand the challenging topics in science. Cognition and Instruction, 24: 261–289. Taylor & Francis Online], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar]) to measure ontological commitments and comment on the instructional implications of Chi's theory. I then address the misconception held by Gupta et al. about Chi's work and call for more empirical research to tease apart the differences between Chi's view of “parallel ontologies” and Gupta et al.'s view of “flexible ontologies.” |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
