A Teaching Strategy Based on Observation, Experience and Inquiry Research on Promoting Students’ Conceptual Change

Youyou Zhang; Yu Zhao; Xiaonan Luo; Danting Deng; Junjie Yan; Jing Liu; Wenhua Lai

doi:10.61414/4sge9605

Abstract

The 2022 “Compulsory Education Primary School Science Curriculum Standards” clearly stipulates the specific requirements for students to conduct scientific inquiry in primary school science classes. Based on the experiential learning theory and the concept change theory, the “Observation-Experience-Inquiry” (OEI) teaching strategy was proposed. Taking cell‑concept teaching as an example, this strategy guides students to revise their prior misconceptions driven by cognitive conflicts. With tools including structural diagrams and collaborative discussion, students can accomplish scientific conceptual change and develop scientific ideas.

References

1.
Alsheimer, S., Schnell, T., Chlebna, C., & Rohe, S. (2025). Competing terms for complementary concepts? Acceptance and legitimacy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 207, 114960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114960.
2.
Amiruddin, M. Z. B., Samsudin, A., Suhandi, A., Coştu, B., & Prahani, B. K. (2025). Scientific mapping and trend of conceptual change: A bibliometric analysis. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101208.
3.
Chen, X., Jia, B., Peng, X., Zhao, H., Yao, J., Wang, Z., & Zhu, S. (2025). Effects of ChatGPT and argument map (AM)-supported online argumentation on college students’ critical thinking skills and perceptions. Education and Information Technologies, 30(12), 17623–17658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13471-2.
4.
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.31.787.121.
5.
Esmaeilzadeh, P. (2025). The role of ChatGPT in disrupting concepts, changing values, and challenging ethical norms: A qualitative study. AI and Ethics, 5, 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00338-w.
6.
Handee, W., Thammaprateep, J., & Suwanjinda, D. (2025). Development of the concept-process model and metacognition via FAR analogy-based learning approach in the topic of metabolism among second-year undergraduates. Chemistry Teacher International, 7(2), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2024-0104.
7.
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90007-9.
8.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 42–68). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021038.n3.
9.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., enlarged). University of Chicago Press.
10.
Kunisch, S., Denyer, D., Bartunek, J. M., Menz, M., & Cardinal, L. B. (2023). Review research as scientific inquiry. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 3–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221127292.
11.
Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2.
12.
Luo, X., Zhang, T., Wang, Y., & Liu, C. (2023). A study on the impact of a spherical video-based virtual reality on teaching English writing guided by experiential learning circle theory. Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation, 5(2), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.61414/jeti.v5i2.125.
13.
Murrell, P. H., & Claxton, C. S. (1987). Experiential learning theory as a guide for effective teaching. Counselor Education and Supervision, 27(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1987.tb00735.x.
14.
Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75414.
15.
Pedaste, M., Baucal, A., & Reisenbuk, E. (2021). Towards a science inquiry test in primary education: Development of items and scales. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00278-z.
16.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.
17.
Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In B. Inhelder, H. H. Chipman, & C. Zwingmann (Eds.), Piaget and his school: A reader in developmental psychology (pp. 11–23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46323-5_2.
18.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207.
19.
Schwab, J. J. (1958). The teaching of science as inquiry. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14(9), 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1958.11453895.
20.
Spiegel, C. (1975). Role-playing sociodramatic simulations in the Montreal area (1971–74) [Master’s thesis, McGill University]. McGill University Repository. https://mcgill.scholaris.ca/bitstreams/8fe583f5-633e-44ac-b54b-5199b9602a37/download.
21.
Stănescu, A.-B., Travadel, S., Rughiniș, R.-V., & Bucea-Manea-Țoniș, R. (2025). Modeling learning outcomes in virtual reality through cognitive factors: A case study on underwater engineering. Electronics, 14(17), 3369. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14173369.
22.
Zhang, T., & Zhang, Q. (2022). Towards integrated testing approach: An application of cognitive science and deep learning principle to language testing. Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation, 3(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.61414/jeti.v3i01.26.
23.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001.

Scilight Press

Author Information

Abstract

Keywords

References

About Scilight

Journals

Publishing Policies

Contact Us