Popular Boards
2 Mentions
Moti Nissani, Donna Marie Hoefler-Nissani | Cognition and Instruction | (1992)
Abstract
Abstract Natural scientists were invited to evaluate a rediscovery-based written manual for teaching high school science and math. The first session refamiliarized participants with the concepts this experiment presupposed, reinforced the legitimacy of the instructional setup, and fostered tolerance for unconventional mathematical formulas. The session also used a cylinder for a hands-on confirmation that the two ways of measuring the volume of geometrical solids-theoretical (through length measurements and the use of a formula) and experimental (through capacity measurements)-yield similar values. In the second individual session, an artificial clash was created: Participants were given an incorrect theoretical formula that ted them to believe that spheres are 50% larger than they are. They were then asked to compare expectations created by this formula to their own capacity measurements of two actual 10-cm and 20-cm spheres. The discrepancies between theoretical and experimental volumes frequently led to doubt, discomfort, adjustment of measurements, and ad hoc explanations. They rarely ted to the abandonment of belief in the false formula. Based on these experimental results, several stages in the process of conceptual change are proposed, including discomfort, ad hoc explanations, adjustment of observations and measurements to fit expectations, doubt, vacillation, and- finally-conceptual shift.
Tags
Sample Definition And Size
The study involved natural scientists, specifically 19 individuals holding Ph.D. degrees in natural science fields and employed as researchers or professors at two major universities. A control group of 15 scientists without preconceptions was also included. ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance?utm_source=openai))
Study Type
This was an experimental study involving hands-on measurement tasks designed to induce a conflict between theoretical expectations and empirical observations, to investigate belief-dependence of observations and resistance to conceptual change. ([tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s1532690xci0902_1?utm_source=openai))
Conflicts Of Interest
No conflicts of interest or potential sources of bias were declared in the available information. ([drnissani.net](https://drnissani.net/mnissani/pagepub/CCc%26i.htm?utm_source=openai))
Results Summary
Key findings include: mean discrepancy for the second measurements of the small sphere was 30.5%, and for the larger sphere 37.5%, both significantly different from participants' expectations (t(df=2, two-tailed, N=13)=5.9, p<.0005). Discrepancies varied widely among individuals (13.9% to 53.5% for combined average discrepancies; SDs: 6.9 for first sphere, 17.6 for second). Control group discrepancies ranged from 28.2% to 61.8% (SD=10). Cylinder measurement discrepancies ranged from 0.02% to 14.6% (SD=3.6). Most participants adjusted their observations to align with expectations rather than abandoning the false formula. ([drnissani.net](https://drnissani.net/mnissani/pagepub/CCc%26i.htm?utm_source=openai))
Referenced In
StarTalk Show Notes
a month ago
Created: Apr 10, 2026
Was a great episode. I thought the final reflection was important: 'on the one hand, scientists are right to be skeptical of new ideas; but obviously the backlash against some (in retrospect) breakthrough ideas/researchers (by the scientific community) are unwarranted'.
I thought Chuck's point was important too was: 'it's not a science problem per se, but a people problem – that exists in all fields'.
Still though, the fact that these (once-rejected) ideas are eventually accepted (after a relatively short time), and the scientists redeemed – gives me faith in the overall project of science.
Mendel (peas) and Rosalind Franklin (DNA picture) come to mind.
I'd be keen to read the 1995 Nissani paper (which is unfortunately paywalled) to learn more!