I don’t mean to go all metaphorical on you all so early in the course, but throughout the readings, I was struck by the idea of ideas solidifying over time. To me, it sounded a lot like sculpting and making a new creation. Now, I’m no artist, so this analogy may limp at times, but hear me out.

You see, it’s as if every student already has a museum of knowledge in their mind. Some of the exhibits are formed and ready, others just have placeholders on display. (Think: “This Exhibit Coming Soon!”) A student, like Heather, already has a fairly well-made museum. People can walk through and see the displays and think that the works have been well made. However, when they get closer, cracks and deformities are visible. From a distance, the exhibits were ready, but up close, they contained major flaws. This would be similar to Heather thinking that the seasons were formed from her curly-Q diagram of the orbit of the earth. From a distance, she can just say, “The seasons are formed because of the orbit of the earth.” It sounds correct, but it masks a deeper problem. A teacher who has a large group of students in the classroom may never even notice (just like a casual museum-goer might not stop to look closer.) However, if someone were to inquire more, the cracks would be visible. Fixing a mistake like this is like repairing a sculpture that has already had time to cure and harden. It’s more tedious and people are not as willing to undertake it, as there is already an “adequate” answer in place. Or, possibly, they like the imperfection and want to try and blend it into the finished product. They believe their “private theories” make just as much sense and are not ready to buff them out. Getting a finished result is going to take individual, detailed attention to make sure every remnant of the old idea is corrected and a new idea is solidly in place.

Now, compare this to a teacher who is teaching an idea for the first time. This is like modeling with fresh clay. It has elasticity and play to it, as it doesn’t have a defined shape as of yet. The sculptor can make sure everything is in the correct place before it is left to harden in place. This directly correlates to a student learning something completely new for the first time. There is not already a complete picture in their mind. Perhaps there are tools and resources that they know of, but the finished product is actively being constructed. According to Shapiro (1988), the student needs to be viewed as “an actively involved in the curriculum” and not seen as blank slate. (Obviously, here is a place where the analogy limps as it would require the sculpture to build itself. But, again, thank you for playing along.). Shapiro (1988) states that this form of learning can be enhanced through active problem solving, a focus on a holistic understanding of the process, not simply details, and encourage collaboration.

The third article that I read was more focused on remediating these misconceptions. Gooding & Metz (2011) classified these misconceptions into five different categories: preconceived notions, no scientific beliefs, conceptual misunderstandings, vernacular misconceptions, and factual misconceptions. They also pointed out how misconceptions have different origins, such as over-application of pattern-seeking behaviors, insufficient development readiness, and even forcing students to also follow the scientific method. To move toward “conceptual change,” as they phrased it, science re-education must happen through identifying misconceptions, creating forums for confrontation, and then reconstructing/internalizing scientific models. Throughout each of these steps, technology can play a main role. Asking students to represent or construct models is easier than ever with technological tools and can help to illustrate areas of conflict. Interaction on online platforms allow for (and many times require) increased communication, which can help to expose areas of focus and then lead to reconstruction. Finally, creation and work with new ideas through models, interaction, and communication assist with the internalization of new concepts. Furthermore, Gooding & Metz suggested four activities that can all be completed using technology: investigation into discrepant events, independent inquiry-based activities, minds-on activities, and metacognitive activities. Through the use of online spaces, a portfolio of learning and a record of growth is easily kept and interacted with as the students engage in personal, authentic conceptual change. No private theories allowed.

Gooding, J., & Metz, B. (2011). From misconceptions to conceptual change. The Science Teacher, 78(4), 34.

Shapiro, B. L. (1988). What children bring to light: Towards understanding what the primary school science learner is trying to do. Developments and dilemmas in science education, 96-120. Available in the course readings library.