In Defense of Chi's Ontological Incompatibility Hypothesis

Autor/in	Slotta, James D.
Titel	In Defense of Chi's Ontological Incompatibility Hypothesis
Quelle	In: Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20 (2011) 1, S.151-162 (12 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1050-8406
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Concept Formation; Misconceptions; Criticism; Research Methodology; Theories; Physics; Scientific Concepts; Classification + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Concept learning; Begriffsbildung; Missverständnis; Kritik; Research method; Forschungsmethode; Theory; Theorie; Physik; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem
Abstract	This article responds to an article by A. Gupta, D. Hammer, and E. F. Redish (2010) that asserts that M. T. H. Chi's (1992, 2005) 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) 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." (Contains 4 footnotes.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10