A Theoretical Review and Trial Application of the 'Resources-Based View' (RBV) as an Alternative Cognitive Theory

대안적 인지 이론으로서 '자원 기반 관점'에 대한 이론적 고찰과 시험 적용

  • Received : 2015.11.03
  • Accepted : 2015.12.28
  • Published : 2015.12.31


The purpose of this study is twofold: to theoretically review the 'resources-based view' (RBV) developed by D. Hammer and his colleagues as an alternative cognitive theory and to illustrate the usefulness of the theory by applying it to interpret a science learning activity in which undergraduate students worked together to construct a model of the seasons. The theoretical review was based on the exploration of relevant literature and dealt mainly with three types of resources: conceptual, epistemological, and practical resources. The trial application revealed that scientific models have been developed through the combination of different pieces of conceptual resources activated from participants, rather than emerging as unitary wholes. However, all the activated resources were not included into a model, and some of the conceptual resources acted as constraints to constructing a scientific model. The implications included that science educators should be attentive and responsive to students' resources and help them use the resources productively to learn science.


Supported by : 한국연구재단


  1. Atwood, R. K., & Atwood, V. A. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of the causes of seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 553-563.<553::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-Q
  2. Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (in press). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Advance online publication doi: 10.1002/tea.21257.
  3. Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20.
  4. Brewer, W. F., & Samarapungavan, A. (1991). Children's theories vs. scientific theories: Differences in reasoning or differences in knowledge. In R. R. Hoffman & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 209-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  5. Chae, D.-H. (1992). Students' naïve theories about change in seasons. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 13(3), 283-289.
  6. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141-167.
  7. Clement, J., Brown, D., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding anchoring conceptions for grounding instruction on students' intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 554-565.
  8. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105-225.
  9. diSessa, A. A. (2013). A bird's-eye view of the "pieces"vs. "coherence" controversy (from the "pieces"side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 31-48). New York: Routledge.
  10. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
  11. Elby, A,. & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students' epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 409-434). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Ford, M. (2008). 'Grasp of practice' as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147-177.
  13. Ford, M. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245.
  14. Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1316-1325.
  15. Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. Physics Education Research, American Journal of Physics, 68(Suppl. 7), S52-S59.
  16. Hammer, D. (2004a). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 1: Case studies of children's inquiries. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 279-299). Bologna: Italian Physical Society.
  17. Hammer, D. (2004b). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 2: Transitions. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 301-319). Bologna: Italian Physical Society.
  18. Hammer, D. (2004c). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 3: Manifold cognitive resources. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 321-340). Bologna: Italian Physical Society.
  19. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89-120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  21. Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.
  22. Hammer, D., Russ, R., Mikeska, J., & Scherr, R. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students' abilities. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 138-156). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  23. Hammer, D., & Sikorski, T.-R. (2015). Implications of complexity for research on learning progressions. Science Education, 99(3), 424-431.
  24. Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1-13.
  25. Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135.
  26. Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383.
  27. Kikas, E. (1998). The impact of teaching on students' definitions and explanations of astronomical phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 439-454.
  28. Kitchener, R. F. (2002). Folk epistemology: An introduction. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 89-105.
  29. Kittleson, J. M. (2012). Epistemological beliefs of third-grade students in an investigation-rich classroom. Science Education, 95, 1026-1048.
  30. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers' epistemological moves and students' practical epistemology. Science Education, 90, 148-163.
  31. Lee, H. (2007). A research on the necessities and methods of criticism of classroom instruction. Anthropology of Education, 10(1), 155-185.
  32. Lee, S.-K. (2015). Conceptual change in learning science. Seoul: SNU press.
  33. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154.
  34. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57-68.
  35. Manz, E. (2015). Resistance and the development of scientific practice: Designing the mangle into science instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 33(2), 89-124.
  36. Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the co-construction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464.
  37. May, D. B., Hammer, D., & Roy, P. (2006). Children's analogical reasoning in a third-grade science discussion. Science Education, 90, 316-330.
  38. Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62.
  39. Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the 'at rest' condition of an object. Physics Teacher, 20, 10-20.
  40. Oh, P. S. (2013). Secondary science teachers' thoughts on 'good' science teaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(2), 405-424.
  41. Oh, P. S. (2014). Characteristics of teacher learning and changes in teachers' epistemic beliefs within a learning community of elementary science teachers. Elementary Science Education, 33(4), 683-699.
  42. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Akkoc, H. (2009). Preservice teachers' instructional beliefs and examination of consistency between beliefs and practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1173-1199.
  43. Parnafes, O. (2012). Developing explanations and developing understanding: Students explains the phases of the moon using visual representations. Cognition and Instruction, 30(4), 359-403.
  44. Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). "The coat traps all your body heat":Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 322-357.
  45. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2008). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2). 261-292.
  46. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71-88). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  47. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369-392.
  48. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993/1994). Misconceptions reconsidered: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
  49. Suh, K.-W. (2013). A lesson, how we see: Looking for children's eyes. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
  50. Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87, 490-516.
  51. Tang, X., Coffey, J., Elby, A., Levin, D. (2010). The scientific method and scientific inquiry: Tensions in teaching and learning. Science Education, 94, 29-47.
  52. The Ministry of Education (2011). Science 6-1: Teacher guide. Seoul: Author.
  53. Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science curriculum. Science & Education, 6, 355-371.
  54. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.

Cited by

  1. Effects of Modeling-Based Science Inquiry Instruction on Elementary Students' Learning in the Unit of Seasonal Changes vol.35, pp.2, 2016,