  In a series of well-known papers, Chi and Slotta (Chi, 1992; Chi & Slotta,
1993; Chi, Slotta & de Leeuw, 1994; Slotta, Chi & Joram, 1995; Chi, 2005;
Slotta & Chi, 2006) have contended that a reason for students' difficulties in
learning physics is that they think about concepts as things rather than as
processes, and that there is a significant barrier between these two
ontological categories. We contest this view, arguing that expert and novice
reasoning often and productively traverses ontological categories. We cite
examples from everyday, classroom, and professional contexts to illustrate
this. We agree with Chi and Slotta that instruction should attend to learners'
ontologies; but we find these ontologies are better understood as dynamic and
context-dependent, rather than as static constraints. To promote one
ontological description in physics instruction, as suggested by Slotta and Chi,
could undermine novices' access to productive cognitive resources they bring to
their studies and inhibit their transition to the dynamic ontological
flexibility required of experts.
