Misconceptions are rife in student minds because misconceptions are common in educator minds. Misconceptions are, as Confrey wrote, ideas and meanings about their world that they formulate to explain how or why things occur (Confrey, 1990). Humans constantly and regularly construct new meanings and understandings as a response to the world around them. This process of constructing understanding, as described by Fosnot (2013), works by refining prior knowledge and adapting it to new observations. The difficulty with this is in discerning when students are using misconceived ideas to fill in the gaps of their understanding. What results may be a blend of the ideas, both accurate and inaccurate, as students attempt to come to terms with a topic.
This is evident in Heather’s inability to remove her misconceptions, which is furthered by the interviewer’s probing questions. When she reaches the limit of her knowledge, she must synthesize new knowledge and for that, she draws on as much knowledge as she can, both correct and incorrect. Educators, however, are in the same position. Much of the scientific community’s understanding of particle physics, for example, may be proven inaccurate in the future. But until that point, misunderstandings are used as a placeholder in the knowledge base in order to progress. Fosnot (2013) describes this as having just enough knowledge, no more and no less, to make sense of what is being observed. Thus, educators promote misconceptions because at the time of their own learning, those misconceptions were perhaps more commonly held and thus taught to them. Coupled with this is the oft relied upon teaching method of lecturing. The presumption that teaching involves the “transfer” of knowledge means that students take in what the teacher provides, misconceptions or otherwise.
To address these concerns, I see the use of digital simulations or augmented reality as a means to help students identify their misconceptions. Using technology to provide students a view into the workings of the science or math will greatly assist their constructivist process. For example, the concepts of cold or “suction” can be presented to students in an AR format that highlights heat transfer or pressure within a given object. Being able to watch the fundamental concepts change in relation to their environment will provide insight into the various science concepts.
References
Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of research in education, 16, 3-56.
Fosnot, C.T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press
Sahiner, A. (Producer), & Schneps, M. (Director). (1987). A private universe [Documentary]. United States: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
From a pedagogical stand point, it seems like we need to develop a certain degree of comfort with misconceptions. At times they are the only way to convey certain aspects of curriculum. For instance, lift is often taught as a product of Bernoulli’s principle when it is also requires some understanding of fluid dynamics and Newtonian interactions between the air and a wing. This is way beyond what most grade 6’s are equipped to handle so we simplify.
It may be worth investigating if there is a way we can use simplifications in a way the will not hamper the later, more complex, conceptions while still making required content accessible.
I think it is also important to develop and model mental flexibility. In particular the idea that we cannot prove a theory, only disprove it. Using contemporary examples of this where possible may help to encourage students to be more flexible in considering new (hopefully more correct) explanations.
A great question Daniel to follow up on Lawrence’s post. How does one simplify, as you write, for the purposes of teaching without (inadvertently) promoting a misconception as a result? Lawrence, your post provokes good queries like this. There is a theory of “model progression” which suggests increasing the complexity of the model by adding variables or factors as perhaps one way of gaining ground. Model progression may play out over years in a curriculum or over an entire unit. We still need to be aware as Daniel writes of misconceptions that arise in the earlier stages.
I wonder Lawrence if you (or others) can extend this with an example of a challenging concept on a student topic that you teach (or have been taught) in science and math where alternative or partial conceptions might arise? Thank you Lawrence, Samia