Monthly Archives: January 2017

It was intriguing to compare the misconceptions between Harvard graduates and grade 9 students. Interestingly, the misconceptions between the two demographics were similar.  When Heather was pressed on how she acquired these theories, she either wasn’t sure, or suggested confusing ideas based on how they were depicted in textbooks from earlier grades.  It is likely that most common sources of misconceptions are lack of clear explanations, misunderstandings from reading and visual materials, and lack of hands on learning. Without having the Sun, the earth and the moon in your hands, it becomes difficult to understand clearly the reasons why we have phases of the moon.

The study by Turgut, Gurbuz, and Turgut (2011) focused on gaining an understanding of misconceptions harbored by grade 10 students on electricity.  A three part multiple choice test was conducted with 10 questions, part one: a normal content knowledge multiple choice question, part two: a multiple choice question where the student would pick the best option supporting why they chose the answer they chose in part one, and part three: how sure they were of their choice in part one.  This was a clever way of determining any misconceptions as if the student was sure of the wrong answer with a reason given, a misconception would become clear.  If the student got a wrong answer and wasn’t sure of the answer, that wouldn’t count as a misconception.  The researchers found around 25 or so different misconceptions related to electricity among 96 grade 10 students.  A few of these misconceptions included: current is consumed in the circuit; current decreases when it passes through the bulb; and bulbs in the parallel are always brighter in series.  The researchers strongly recommended designing classroom experiences that addressed these misconceptions so that students could have better learning experiences regarding electricity.

There were some parallels between the Turgut, Gurbuz, and Turgut (2011) and Driver, Guesne, and Tiberghien (1985), one of the required readings.  Both studies highlighted the sheer difficulty of getting rid of misconceptions that children develop as they go through different grades learning science.  Both articles also suggested students are not empty vessels when they come to class, that they have their own set of ideas, something that was also a fact stated in the required video about Heather.

From the readings I have discovered that multiple activities are required so that students get various opportunities to compare the scientific view of a concept to their own.  To allow students to be rid of a misconception, it first needs to be recognized by the teacher.  Furthermore, it needs to be confronted directly by the teacher in multiple ways so that students have a better chance of letting go of their misconception.  To that end, there are a variety of interactive simulations and high quality video content that teachers could use to provide these multiple ways of teaching a single concept.  There are a number of science related channels like TEDEd, CrashCourse, The Sci Guys etc. that produce very engaging and inviting video content, along with simulations like Phet can go a long way in helping students understand concepts.

References

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science. Children’s ideas in science, 1-9. Available online: search the title using any engine.

Turgut, U., Gurbuz, F., & Turgut, G. (2011).  An investigation 10th grade students’ misconceptions about electric current. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1956-1971.

Reflecting on my own experiences as a student and as a teacher leads to two generalizations of personal challenges I have encountered:

1. Memorization of so much information without application
2. Repetition + Rote vs. Time + Experience

Both of these issues were relevant to me in my secondary and post-secondary education. Having been a particularly strong student through most of my grade levels, I began to struggle at the end of secondary school and beginning of post-secondary when I could not simply rely on memorization of what I heard in class. I was not used to having to “work” to acquire my learning.

The video we watched about Harvard graduates and the case study of Heather stated, “every time we communicate, new concepts compete with the pre-conceived ideas of our listeners” (18:38). In thinking about the growing trend or use of STEM, or STEAM, or inquiry-based learning and other related terms in the classroom, the similarity of all of these is integrating subject areas and hands on learning. I find it exciting to think of all the possibilities when we picture inter-curricular projects rather than separate boxed subject areas. Recognizing how these subject areas can co-exist simultaneously and being comfortable with it, however, seems to be one of the biggest hurdles. Nadelson et al. (2013) suggest that, “many elementary teachers have constrained background knowledge, confidence, and efficacy for teaching STEM that may hamper student STEM learning” (p. 157). “Access to appropriate resources” (p. 157) and appropriate professional development seem to also be key challenges to the integration of STEM into the elementary curriculum whose content and daily schedule seem to lend itself particularly well to the teaching of STEM. Although this article cites the problem being that the teacher certification program does not include enough science and mathematics methods and content courses, which I do agree with to a certain extent, I have found that authentic, engaging professional development is severely lacking and not often sought out. I also contend that even if there were more methods and content courses in teacher certification programs, change would not necessarily occur if the teaching in the certification programs continued to be on dated methods and content. Getting back to the original quote from the video, new concepts compete with the pre-conceived ideas not only in our students but also in teachers. How can teachers be encouraged to challenge their own pre-conceived ideas without feeling threatened or without having the fear of a ton more work without any payoff in regards to student learning?

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science. Children’s ideas in science, 1-9.

Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J. , Pyke, P. , Hay, A. , Dance, M. & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM Perception and Preparation: Inquiry-Based STEM Professional Development for Elementary Teachers, The Journal of Educational Research, 106:2, 157-168, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2012.667014

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.

In investigating misconceptions in science learning this week, I discovered that there seems to be significant tension between our desire to frame childhood development in terms of Piagetian stages while simultaneously trying to teach concepts that draw conceptually from later developments. It seems obvious from experience that we can indeed teach children concepts “beyond their stage” but we need to be aware that they see the world through a different lens, sort of like a cognitive default. For most adults at the formal operations stage, it is easy for us to accept an abstract theorem and manipulate it symbolically. We have developed a certain degree of facility in manipulating symbols and our experience has taught us that the effects of such manipulations are borne out in the real world.

For a child in the concrete operations stage, the world is focused around specific examples that can be seen, touched, and felt. Taking the example of lunar phases, which has been repeatedly show to be challenging not just for early learners but even adults, where students must extract themselves not just from their experience, but right off the planet in order to successfully conceive how the light from the sun reflects off the moon and how it can be illuminated in places we cannot see directly from the ground.

Questioning, analogies, and interactive models appear to form a powerful trio for both teaching and correcting students’ understandings of science concepts (and misconceptions). Questioning students’ conceptions to illuminate inconsistencies can cause a degree of dissatisfaction with a student present conceptions. This might be done directly in the style of a clinical interview, or indirectly through activities and experiments in which common misconceptions lead to situations that are not tenable based on the old conceptions. This is the first condition for assimilation, a shift of a learners’ conceptions to some new way of understanding (Posner et al, 1982). The next step, analogies, can drastically increase the intelligibility of an explanation, the second condition for accommodation (Posner et al.,1982). By framing an explanation in terms of other, less contentious, experiences, we can address the concrete learner in concrete terms where they are more familiar instead of with formal logic and abstraction. As the learner considers an analogy that challenges a conception or belief, presuming they recognize a genuine issue and hold a belief that there understanding should be consistent (Posner et al.,1982), they are brought to a point where they must either dismiss the new questions, assimilate, or accommodate (Posner et al.,1982). The addition of the model allows for students to test an analogy through experience rather than through abstract mental representations, a stage in which they are not yet fluent. The ability to test creates new experiences which frame the understanding of the concrete learner. The ability to rapidly test the new conception with a physical or digital model helps increase its plausibility, the third condition for accommodation. From this point, we can return to questioning to ask what this new conception might allow to be possible and then return to the model to assess it. With the possibility of new avenues for further understanding, the final condition, it seems most likely that the student will accommodate a new conception rather than modifying through assimilation or dismissing the issues raised.

Technologically, I can conceive of a computer based assessment instrument that seeks out and correct common misconceptions in this manner. The instrument proceeds as a normal diagnostic instrument until the user’s answers reveal a misconception. Further questioning would confirm the misconception. The program could then switch to a tutoring function whereby it would present analogies to explain a phenomenon. A computer based simulation would then be available to test the explanation. Video material demonstrating the possibilities of the correct conception would be presented and then the assessment would begin again. The use of simulation in this manner has already been shown to be effective in correcting misconceptions in astronomy education through the use of zoomable solar models displayed on tablets (Schneps, 2014). The students using the scale models showed marked reductions in misconceptions regarding the relative scale of celestial sizes and distances (Schneps, 2014).

Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of research in education, 16, 3-56. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167350

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. and Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci. Ed., 66: 211–227. doi: 10.1002/sce.373066020.

Schneps, M. H. (2014).  Conceptualizing astronomical scale: Virtual simulations on handheld tablet computers reverse misconceptions. Computers and education, 70: 269-280. Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.001

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.

In the movie, “A Private Universe”, Heather, a highly competent student as described by her teacher, begins her interview with confidence, but very soon, that confidence begins to waver and the misconceptions start to reveal themselves.  One key issue with Heather’s understanding, dealt with the orbital pathway of the Earth as it rounds the Sun. What was remarkable to me was how she began to question her initial concept, once asked where her incorrect ideation stemmed from. Heather’s realization that she had seen a similar shape in a very different context and had erroneously applied it to the Earth’s pathway, clearly helped her process the correct information.  From an information processing perspective, learners need to relate new information to previously learned information, via elaboration.  The elaborative process also generates more pathways towards information that is held in our Long-Term Memory (Orey, 2001). As Heather’s misconception exemplifies, however, sometimes our memory retrieval process leads us down some hazy pathways that result in misconceptions being “hard wired” into our brains.

Vosniadou & Brewer (1992)

Although in Heather’s situation, her conceptual challenge originated from a misinterpreting a textbook’s image, the Piagetian view that we all form our knowledge from life experiences is widely accepted as truth. Vosniadou and Brewer (1992) undertook the challenge of examining children’s mental models of the Earth. They concluded that children’s scientific views are consistent, although often, incorrect.  82% of the sixty children created models of the Earth that fell into one of only five common alternative models (see image); 38% used three dimensional, spherical-style models; and although the oldest children had the most correct models, they also had the most variation in models. The authors concluded that in order for children to circumnavigate their presuppositions, an alternative explanatory framework must exist that allows them to challenge their existing knowledge.

Math learning is ideally a combination of individuals coordinating and constructing their own knowledge and having their learning be situated within a sociocultural context (Cobb, 1994). One way to foster these Vygotskian learning conditions is the implementation of self-generated analogies.  These are analogies, which aim to ground the student’s learning within their pre-existing, core intuition.  In their study, Haglurd and Jeppsson worked with preservice physics teachers, hoping to learn if self-generated analogies would improve their understanding of entropy. They concluded that generating multiple analogies as a group helped with their understanding but that the students failed to analyze the concept macroscopically, hence missing key concepts. When scaffolded guidance was provided, however, their idiosyncratic ideas were prevented from escalating into full-blown misconceptions.

Without question, these readings have emphasized the importance providing multiple and varied opportunities for misconceptions to rise to the surface. For students like myself, who were hesitant to ask for clarification during or after class, unchallenged misconceptions can easily be entrenched. Watching Heather be challenged, validates a couple of approaches that I do when I tutor students. I like to ask students to show me their notes, before I go into an explanation and if they say something that is incorrect, I always try and think why they have retrieved erroneous information.  Students will mix concepts together, so I like to show them where they got their misconception from, in the hopes to have them create a better pathway to that information in the future.  I also like to show them that they are not completely wrong— they have learned something, even if they link the concepts together incorrectly!

Going forward, I am very keen to create a physics-based, self-generated analogy assignment.  Utilizing Google Classroom as a conduit, students could create a digital version of their analogy (stop motion or real time video, Powtoon, animation…).  Leading up to the final product, however, it would be imperative to discuss and weed out any pre-existing misconceptions: bring on the guided scaffolding!

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20. doi:10.3102/0013189X023007013

Haglund, J., & Jeppsson, F.(2014). Confronting conceptual challenges in thermodynamics by use of self-generated analogies. Science & Education, 23(7), 1505-1529. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9630-5

Orey, M. (2001). Information Processing. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535-585. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W

In theory, the idea that we do not ‘assume’ until we have all required information appears a relatively straight-forward concept; however, as the video and articles this week have shown, in reality this concept is far from straight-forward.  What struck me most in this week’s materials was the point that if students do not share their misconceptions with us, we may never realize they have misconceptions, and as was clearly shown in “A Private Universe” (1987), students may go through their entire educational careers without realizing, understanding, or correcting the misconceptions they have held since childhood.  As Heather’s teacher, Marlene LaBossiere, points out, “You just assume that they know certain things…I just assumed that they had the basic ideas, and they don’t” (“A Private Universe”, 1987, time stamp: 8:55).  Driver, Guesne and Tiberghien (1985) draw attention to the fact that children approach science with ideas and interpretations despite not having received instruction.  Similarly, Henriques (2000) states that “…students enter the classroom with their own understandings of the world…often at odds with the scientifically accepted view of the world” (p. 1).  In addition to these points, once we receive instruction, we all assimilate information differently depending on our prior knowledge and experiences (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985).

Many difficulties related to misconceptions arise for educators, among them: how do we identify students’ misconceptions (especially when each child has their own “private” misconceptions) and where have students’ misconceptions originated from?  Misconceptions can originate from textbooks, classroom experiences, and personal experiences (A Private Universe, 1987), as well as physical activities, communications with others, and through media sources (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985, p. 2).  In addition to these, in her paper, “Children’s misconceptions about weather: A review of the literature” Laura Henriques (2000) discusses the fact that “students tend to develop their own models to explain phase changes” (p.4) which coincides with Heather’s explanation strategies in “A Private Universe” (1987) as she attempted to explain her thinking through drawings and manipulatives.

The misconception I examined more closed was related to phase changes of water and the variety of misconceptions students have around changes in state.  For example, rather than understanding how condensation is formed on a container, children may believe the water has “seeped through” or “sweated through” the container; that “coldness comes through the container and produces water”; or that “condensation is when air turns into a liquid” (Henriques, 2000, p.5).  Henriques suggests that these misconceptions may be based in the following: “language used is confusing – we talk about glasses “sweating” and humans sweat liquids from the inside.  It is difficult for students to think about invisible water in the air which condenses onto a surface” (p. 5-6).

Today, there are a variety of sources available to help educators dispel misconceptions about topics in science.  Digital technology allows for more interactive, engaging and motivating learning experiences in today’s classrooms.  Tools such as interactive websites or SMART technologies (i.e., SMARTboards, tablets, iPads, etc.) have the potential to add to interactive experiences for students, potentially helping to correct misconceptions through this interactive approach.  I remember being in a SET-BC sponsored workshop about eight years ago where we were shown a virtual lab on how to dissect a frog.  I found the virtual lab so interesting, and the experience made enough of an impact on me that I remember it above anything else we were shown that day.  I do not recall the exact site, but I did check online and found that McGraw Hill Higher Education does have a Virtual Lab site that has a “Virtual Frog Dissection” just to show an example (http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/virtual_labs/BL_16/BL_16.html).  In today’s classrooms, in addition to more traditional printed materials, we are privileged to have access to videos, interactive games, simulations and virtual labs which have the potential to increase student understanding on a more basic level, as well as foster a deeper understanding for students who are willing to accept the challenge.

*On a side note, I found Laura Henriques’s paper provided a number of interesting misconceptions students had regarding various aspects of science/earth science (if you are interested in viewing it, here is the link: http://web.csulb.edu/~lhenriqu/NARST2000.htm).

References:
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A.  (1985).  Children’s ideas and the learning of science.  Children’s Ideas in Science (pp. 1-9).  Milton Keynes [Buckinghamshire]; Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Producer).  (1987).  A Private Universe [online video].  Retrieved 6 January, 2017, from: http://learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9

Henriques, L.  (2000, April).  Children’s misconceptions about weather: A review of the literature.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.  Retrieved 7 January, 2017, from: http://web.csulb.edu/~lhenriqu/NARST2000.htm

After reading this week’s selections and watching the video, I realized to what an immense degree misconceptions can make our jobs even more challenging, especially when they aren’t immediately clear. The possibility of hidden misconceptions in one that has been stuck in my mind. For example, when Heather was initially questioned in “Private Universe”, it appeared that she had a good understanding of the concepts.  When the depth and wording of the questions changed, however, it became clear that her interpretation and understanding was not entirely accurate.  If the further questioning had never occurred, these misconceptions may never have been adequately identified.  In “Constructivism and Student Misconceptions: Why Every Teacher Needs to Know About Them,” Audrey Sewell explains that it is possible that students develop parallel but mutually inconsistent explanations of scientific concepts, using one in a school context to ‘pass the test’ and the other in the ‘real world.’  Such a situation presents challenges to us as educators, because we may not even be aware that misconceptions exist or what they actually are, and as such, they may remain unchallenged and unaddressed throughout the student’s education, thereby weakening the foundation of his/her further learning.

One of the primary responsibilities of us as educators, it would seem, is therefore to use effective formative assessment to help identify misconceptions in order to be able to identify where misconceptions exist.  For example, rather than being satisfied with basic check-in or revision questions, we need to ask higher level questions that require students to explain their thinking and make connections, as well as find additional tasks to help challenge a student’s conceptions.  Audrey Sewell explained that even a visual demonstration may not be enough to convince a student to adapt their conception.  The most effective approach may be to provide students with multiple ways of approaching a concept so as to hopefully be able to engage each student through at least one method.  Connecting students with field experts through a technology tool such as Skype may be one way to help students be metacognitive about their understandings, as it is a novel experience.  Additional tools may include using apps such as Explain Everything to have students be able to visually and orally explain their understandings, similar to the marker and paper method employed in the Private Universe video, or having students conduct research to approach a topic using the dialectical method, which requires them to justify both sides of an argument.  By finding evidence that may be contradictory to their initial understandings, students may be motivated to learn more for clarification.

One of my goals that I am going to take away from this week is to make a conscious effort to ensure that I am consistently requiring my senior math students to explain and justify their strategies and procedures to ensure that they are aligned with accurate understandings.  As they work through their courses at their own pace using various resources, there are many opportunities for misconceptions to be added and perhaps not enough opportunities to challenge their thinking.  This is something I am going to work to change.

External Resources:

Sewell, A. (2002). Constructivism and student misconceptions: Why every teacher needs to know about them.Australian Science Teachers’ Journal,48(4), 24-28. Retrieved January 9, 2017.