Category Archives: A. Conceptual Challenges

Technology with its wide adoption and ease of use brings with it great opportunity but also presents a challenge to educators.  Our ability to share ideas to a large audience is easier than ever and thus we find ourselves with the challenge of filtering false ideas from our students.  Further, students arrive in our classrooms with their own experiences and misconceptions of ideas we are attempting to build on, challenging the educator to cover course content yet also ensure students are developing deep, meaningful learning.

Fosnot (2013) describes behaviorism and maturationism as two theories of learning that educators use to either help students understand concepts or determine when it may be appropriate for them to cover that material.  Behaviorism, specifically reinforcement and practice, is a pedagogical approach many math teachers, including myself have used to develop student understanding of specific ideas.  The problem arises if these methods of teaching are used to help students memorize procedures without any attempt to ask the question why?.  The third theory, Constructivism, addressed this problem directly.  It is a widely studied theory that states students construct their deep knowledge on a particular topic through experience and reflection.  Further, the new knowledge is built on top of previous knowledge again demonstrating the importance of educators addressing student misconceptions early.

In our course video, we learned that regardless of their science education, twenty one of twenty three Harvard graduates had misconceptions about the phases of the moon and why we have seasons on earth.  The video went on to focus on a grade 9 student, Heather, why had some interesting ideas on the same question.  We saw that Heather had much of the terminology correct but didn’t fully understand what the terms meant (indirect and direct sunlight for instance).  After classroom instruction on the topic, Heather was able to reverse some of her misconceptions but even after direct, one on one instruction, Heather was not willing to let go of some ideas she had formed.  

We, as educators, have great resources at our disposal to help students develop deep understanding of our course content and curricular competencies.  We have lesson videos such as Khan Academy and free graphing tools such as Desmos.com to allow students to manipulate equations and see the impact these manipulations have graphically.  Accurate simulations are available for almost every subject area (I teach business education and there are a wealth of simulations available to educators) and are generally free to use.  Ellis et. al. (2011) studied students experiences using technology in the science, math and history classes and found that students engaged highly (for different reasons depending on the subject) with the content.  One of the findings was that students appreciated the wider range of answers they could find on the internet and thus potentially increasing the chances of developing a deeper understanding.

References

Constructivism: A Psychological theory of learning or Cobb, Paul. “Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development.” Educational researcher 23, no. 7 (1994): 13-20. Available in the course readings library

Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., Bliuc, A., & Ellis, M. (2011). High school students’ experiences of learning through research on the Internet. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6), 503-515. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00412.x

Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press.

Watching the video provided this week and seeing some of the common misconceptions that even the most educated students have about the solar system reminded me of a recent misconception that was shared among my grade 8 students about the concept of repeated multiplication.  In the video, Heather’s misconceptions of the videos stem from misinterpretations of common illustrations used in textbooks, and a misconstrued view of the solar system and its planetary bodies. I find my own student’s misunderstanding to have similar causes.

The problem that my students struggled with this year had to do with an application of exponents, specifically with the number of bacteria in a population after it has undergone a period of exponential growth. The problem I pose to students is as follows:

“In the beginning of an experiment, there is 50 bacteria cells. The bacteria population grows when each bacteria splits in half. How many bacteria would there be after 4 divisions?”

A common solution given by my students is as follows: “50 * 50 * 50 * 50 = 6250000, so there are 62500000 bacteria after 4 divisions”

This calculation is incorrect because the concept of splitting in half cannot be captured directly by multiplying the initial population repeatedly. The correct solution would be that “50 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 800 bacteria”

One may classify this type of error as an error due to “rigidity of thinking leading to inadequate flexibility in decoding and encoding new information” (Comfrey, 1990) When students are first introduced to exponents, they are usually taught the “fact” that for a given number n, n^m = n * n * n * n m times, usually without any accompanying illustrations or physical models, thus it could become very difficult to come up with different ways of using that rule. As constructivists would have it, the individual mental construction of the concept is largely incomplete. (Cobb, 2004)

In order to better integrate this knowledge and apply it to bacteria growth, students need time to reflect on their solution in different ways (Davis, 2000). The students should be encouraged to ask themselves, “Is it plausible for 50 bacteria to turn into 62500000 bacteria just after 4 divisions?”, “If the same pattern was consistent, would 3125000000 bacteria after 5 divisions make sense?” Students should be asked not only to reflect on this through thinking, but also through illustration. How would one draw a bacteria population of 62500000? How does this drawing compare to that of 50 bacteria?

In order to solve the given problem, different strategies should be taught in addition to the rule. Some of which include drawing pictures depicting the number of bacteria after each split, or constructing a table to record the number of bacteria after each split. Other strategies involving digital technology would be showing videos or animations of bacteria growth in order to further help students in developing their understanding of exponential growth. I believe these are all strategies that will assist in helping students develop a more accurate model of knowledge.

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational researcher, 23(7), 13-20.

Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of research in education, 16, 3-56.

Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837.

In A Private Universe, students and faculty are asked to explain their reasoning for various scientific concepts. Heather is identified by her science teacher as being the student who she would expect to “give a better explanation than the other kids could.” Despite the assumption that Heather has all the correct answers, when prompted, Heather’s prior knowledge and exposure to the scientific concepts from external sources creates for her several misconceptions about the rotations of the Earth, the phases of the moon and the properties of light in space. With further provocation and physical tools, Heather is able to readjust her hidden misunderstandings to match the scientific concepts more accurately. Her confrontation of her misconceptions prompt her to find new, true meanings within the concepts.

Further on, however, Heather is still unable to let go of her private theories regarding light, despite a one-on-one lesson. Rosalind Driver (1985) address this refusal of change as part of the private theories being stable. While students may learn new concepts, they are not a blank slate. They may, therefore, ignore counter-evidence towards their perceived theory or alter their theory to fit the new information, rather than refute a construct they have built up in their minds previously (Driver, 1985).

This is something I have witnessed within the classroom as an educator. Students have been introduced to the word “hacking” and many of them have had different experiences related to this. While attempting to teach a lesson on coding, as a way of giving instructions to produce a result, a student raised his hand and asked if coding was like hacking? This drove us to have a meaningful conversation around internet safety, however, by the end of the lesson I could tell that there were still a few confused faces when being confronted with the word “hacking”.  It wasn’t until the students engaged in meaningful activities around coding that they were able to correct their misunderstandings about coding and hacking being similar (Shapiro, 1988). Through a study conducted on university students, active learning was found to be the most effective in solidifying conceptual understandings in STEM related fields, regardless of class size or the particular STEM discipline (Freeman et al., 2014). Therefore, meaningful engagement and active learning with the concepts being studied may be the best way to help students overcome misconceptions and challenge their private theories.

When it comes to technology, having students engage with the material themselves may create a more solid understanding than a PowerPoint or video. Students can be challenged to prove their private theories by creating tutorial videos or explanatory animations where they need to interact with both the concepts and the technology to make a concept “make-sense” for someone other than themselves. Not only will this aid in further instruction by knowing where they might be coming from with their prior knowledge, but it will also clarify for themselves areas that lack a complete understanding.

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

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

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.

Schneps, Matthew. (1989). A Private Universe: Misconceptions That Block Learning. Retrieved from: http://learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9

In the video A Private Universe, Heather articulates personal theories regarding several natural phenomena. Heather has developed many misconceptions that she uses to explain the world around her. Her teacher is surprised when she expresses detailed an understanding not connected with content and explanations introduced in class.  Osborne and Wittrock (1983) write that “children develop ideas about their world, develop meanings for words used in science [mathematics and programming], and develop strategies to obtain explanations for how and why things behave as they do” (p. 491). Heather has many private theories and through verbal explanation and drawing, Heather becomes aware of her prior knowledge. She did seem somewhat unsure and dissatisfied with her explanations. Heather was able to reverse her misconceptions through new experiences in the classroom.  Posner writes that “a new conception is unlikely to displace on old one, unless the old one encounters difficulties, and a new intelligible and initially plausible conception is available that resolves these difficulties.” (p. 219). She confronts her private theory and is able to accommodate a new understanding. In A Review of the Research on Student Conceptions in Mathematics, Science, and Programming (1990) Confrey writes “teachers are often, and understandably, impatient for their students to develop clear and adequate ideas. But putting ideas in relation to each other is not a simple job. It is confusing; and that confusion does take time. All of us need time for our confusion if we are to build the breadth and depth that give significance to our knowledge” (p.  9). This demonstrates the importance of activating prior knowledge and engaging in activities that might cause conflict within the learner.

During the video and the articles, I was connecting to the program First Steps in Math which has helped me identify many mathematical misconceptions students hold. It is all about identifying student’s misconceptions about math and having them explain and confront their thinking. When I took the PD several years ago they highlighted examples of several children using personal theories to solve math problems. Most of the teachers at the PD initially assumed the students were randomly attempting solutions. However, through the case studies, it was demonstrated that the kids had developed, although very misguided, ideas and procedures they were applying very purposefully. In one place value assessment from the program, kids have to identify the number of dinosaurs in the picture below. When they determine that there are 35 dinosaurs, they are asked to underline the 35 (without the teacher identifying the number). They are then asked to circle that many dinosaurs. The majority of the teachers said most of their kids circled 3 instead of 30 dinosaurs. It then recommends a series of activities that help address student’s misconceptions about the number system.

I think technology can be very useful to help kids address conceptions. I now usually start new math and science concepts with a chance for students to explain and demonstrate their prior knowledge and personal theories on the subject. When studying the human body my students used Explain Everything to collaboratively create videos about what they thought happened to food after they ate it. It is very interesting to hear their ideas and attempts to explain their thinking. Many came out of the project with a pretty accurate understanding before we even “started”, just through collaboration with knowledgeable students.  Technology can also allow students to manipulate visualizations or participate in online environments that provide immediate feedback, allowing them to continually test their thinking.

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. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

The video this week, “A Private Universe,” pointed out something I have seen a lot over the years as a teacher and an administrator: what we perceive as basic concepts as teachers are not necessarily basic. It is something that needs to be addressed through better teaching practice (clearly established and communicated goals of each lesson, diagnostic, and formative testing). For any student, assuming prior knowledge is dangerous but Heather’s case is somewhat different. Her theories are based on her own efforts to construct knowledge and the theories themselves show an active mind wanting to learn. Her theories were incorrect but this is due mainly to the fact that her teachers did not have an accurate picture of what she previously knew. This speaks to Catherine Fosnot’s understanding of constructivism (2013).

In his book, “the pupil as scientist” R. Driver (1983) accurately explains Piaget’s concept of dissonance and how it relates to learning. I would argue that Heather concept of the astronomy was never challenged and no dissonance occurred, making it impossible for assimilation to occur. He in class learning did not build on her knowledge but rather had little impact because it didn’t address the misconceived notions she had already constructed.

Heather’s struggle resonates with me because I have gone through many similar experiences as a student in school. When one lacks the basic understanding or has a misconception this leads to an inability to reinforce factual conceptions because they do not match (Chi, 2015). Other misconceptions can occur from a teacher’s own misunderstanding of the material that can confuse the student (Burgoon, Heddle, Duran, 2011). As we saw in the video very prevalent myths survive in the minds of students and it was truly fascinating seeing the well-accomplished science grads at the beginning of the video so consistently get “basic” information wrong. In this case, the explanation is so prevalent in society it shouldn’t surprise most to think that High School students would not know this but the video itself shows just how these gaps in knowledge can be sustained over time and theories much more advanced and complicated can be understood and explained. It speaks to the fact that teachers can have a lasting effect that is not always positive.

As an educator, an important motto I live by is that one must know where a student is to be able to help to get them to where they need to be. Certainly, we are doing a better job of this than in the past but a firm commitment must be made to be meet students where they are rather than where we assume they should be.

Burgoon, J.N., Heddle, M.L., Duran, E. (2011). Re-examining the similarities between teacher and student conceptions about physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(2), 101-114.

Chi, M. T. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The journal of the learning sciences, 14(2), 161-199.

Driver, D. (1983) The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Fosnot, Catherine. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, 2013 Chapter 2: Constructivism: A Psychological theory of learning

In A Private Universe, Heather struggles with her understanding of astronomy because of her lack of instruction in science. She has created her own theories to fill in areas she lacks understanding. As you can see evidenced in the film, she struggles with her own theories, and attempts to draw and map them out, causing her to question the validity of her claims. Confrey (1990) discusses Hawkins critical barriers of learning, claiming that “certain kinds of conceptual difficulties which students experience are indeed intrinsic to the growth of scientific understanding.” Heather’s conceptual difficulties, specifically her understanding about Earth’s orbit, have met a place where her theories will be corrected with the guidance and correct information from her teacher. She is now in a place where she can challenge her understanding, and grow in her scientific understanding.

In my experience with STEM lessons at the primary level, many students approach ‘challenges’ with conceptual difficulties. One example occurred when students were challenged to use Design Thinking to create a Rube Goldberg machine, evidencing their understanding of force and motion. Driver, Guesne, Tiberghien (1985) explain that students have constructed their own ideas and understanding, and it may seem incoherent from the teacher’s point of view. As I watched a group of boys attempting to make their marble roll up a ramp, their ideas persisted even when they were not consistent with the experimental results or my explanation. In our post discussions and reflections of weekly STEM activities, I often find that students have visually seen an idea somewhere, however they lack the conceptual understanding to make that idea work. Teachers also possess similar misconceptions about many concepts, including force and gravity, and I wonder if this is passed on in error. (Burgoon, Heddle, Duran, 2011). Even though many of the student’s ideas are being challenged, they lack the building blocks of scientific concepts to fill in the gaps, which hinders their understanding.

Technology has played a key role in my classroom to help fill the gaps that many students have. If I see a group of students struggling with a concept during a STEM challenge, I can often pull up a BrainPop video that the students can watch together. These short, visual, and entertaining clips help the students through their “highlight and fix” stage (Spencer, Juliani, 2016). It’s integral to correct the misunderstanding while it’s being challenged. Technology is instant, accessible, and engaging. I have found it to be a remarkable addition to the classroom, making learning as authentic as possible.

References:

Burgoon, J.N., Heddle, M.L., Duran, E. (2011). Re-examining the similarities between teacher and student conceptions about physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(2), 101-114. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-010-9196-x

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

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

Spencer, J. & Juliani, A.J. (2016). LAUNCH: using design thinking to boost creativity and bring out the maker in every student. San Diego, CA: Dave Burgess Consulting, Inc.

In the Video with Heather we saw that there are misconceptions that block learning. As teachers we often assume that students have the basic ideas or are a blank vessel waiting to be filled. In Heather’s case, even after direct instruction to correct her misunderstanding of direct and indirect light paths she still holds on to her previous understanding. Posner et al. (1982) identify these misunderstandings as conceptual ecology. As we challenge students’ beliefs, like Heather was by her teacher, we are trying to create the conditions to allow for an accommodation. In the case of Heather, direct instruction allowed for her to create an accommodation and better explain the causes of the seasons and moon phases but she was not able to grow her understanding of light paths. Gomez-Zwiep (2008) further our understanding of how Heather could hold onto her beliefs as students may hold onto their misconceptions if they are “extensions of effective knowledge that function productively within a specific context.”

All three articles start with the need for the teacher to first acknowledge that students come with their own preconceived knowledge structures and are not empty vessels waiting to be filled. Posner et al. (1982) identify these teaching strategies to deal with misconceptions or use to create an environment that supports the developments of accommodations.
1) Provide lessons that create cognitive conflict in the students.
2) Create lessons that allow for significant amounts of time to assess students and observe for areas where they are resisting accommodations.
3) Develop strategies with teachers that allow them to identify errors that affect accommodations.
4) Present content in multiple modes.
5) Develop many evaluation techniques to track errors in learning.
These points tie into the research by Gomez-Zwiep (2008) and raises the question on what supports are needed allow the elementary generalist to have a strong understanding of all topics that they are able to create the above listed ideals. Confey (1990) also identifies the need for sufficient time to allow for exploration and development of ideas. The integration of technology into today’s classroom has the ability to help support different modalities of learning, and allow for time for the teacher to work with students who require the supports. However technology is only one aspect, addressing effective Pro. D and teacher training as “[t]he results of the study and of previous research (Halim and Meerah 2002; Meyer 2004) suggest that teachers are not prepared to confront science misconceptions when they arise in their classrooms, even if the teachers recognize that such misconceptions exist.” (Gomez-Zweip, 2008, P. 452).

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.
Gomez-Zwiep, S. (2008). Elementary teachers’ understanding of students’ science misconceptions: Implications for practice and teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 437-454. doi:10.1007/s10972-008-9102-y
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, Matthew. A Private Universe: Misconceptions That Block Learning. Massachusetts, USA: Annenberg Media, 1989. video.

As seen in this week’s video, “A Private Universe,” scientific concepts in astronomy can be difficult for students to grasp, as seen in the case of Heather, a very bright student in Boston.  Students have their own explanations for phenomena they have observed, and it is often the job of the science teacher to correct misconceptions.  To do this, teachers must first have a knowledge of a student’s current understanding.  This fits well with the idea of constructivism, as discussed by Catherine Fosnot.

Fosnot discusses two ‘giants’ in the field of constructivism.  There is Piaget with his concept of cognitive equilibration – the balancing of assimilation (the organization of experience with one’s own logical structures or understandings) and accommodation (comprised of reflective, integrative behavior that serves to change one’s own self and explicate the object in order for us to function with cognitive equilibrium in relation to it) (Fosnot, 1996. p. 13).  There is Vygotsky, who proposed a “Zone of Proximal Development.”  He argued that scientific concepts do not come to the learner in a ready-made form. They undergo substantial development, depending on the existing level of the child’s ability to comprehend the adult’s model (Fosnot, 1996. p. 18).  Fosnot describes constructivism as using misconceptions to create disequilibrium, which facilitates learning (Fosnot, 1996. P. 29).

The workings of our universe are a mystery for many learners, as shown again by Vosniadou and Brewer in 1992.  “[M]any children said that the earth is round but also stated that it has an end or edge from which people could fall. A great deal of this apparent inconsistency could be explained by assuming that the children used, in a consistent fashion, a mental model of the earth other than the spherical earth model” (Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992).

Heather’s struggle (and her teacher’s!) was familiar to me.  In Grade 4 Science, as part of the “Light and Shadow” unit, I try to show students every year how the position of the moon in relation to the sun and the earth gives us the phases of the moon.  I usually have students up holding the globe, a styrofoam ball and a big lamp.  I think I have been somewhat successful in getting this concept across, but there are often interesting misconceptions that come up during class discussion.

So… Can technology help?  In 2010, Sun, Lin and Wang made a VR model of the sun and moon for elementary children, and found that students with access to the 3-D model achieved significantly better grades that students receiving traditional instruction.  I would love to try this with my own students!

References:

Fosnot, Catherine. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, 2013 Chapter 2: Constructivism: A Psychological theory of learning

Sun, KT., Lin, CL. & Wang, SM. Int J of Sci and Math Educ (2010) 8: 689. doi:10.1007/s10763-009-9181-z

VOD “A Private Universe”.  http://learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive psychology, 24(4), 535-585.

The video “A Private Universe” describes the teachers struggle with communicating new concepts to students as they hold on to their preconceived ideas and have difficulty creating new knowledge structures. Students discover new ideas form a multitude of places.  “Everyday experiences, everyday communication, mass-media,and language,” (Driver, Guesne, Tiberghie, 1985).  No other time in my teaching experience have I seen media such as Youtube dominate my students opinions on so many topics in Science and Math. Not only that but it guides the direction of knowledge and focuses their attention on singular topics.  The area which I believe is becoming more prevalent as we move into the digital age is the power that mass media has on students preconceptions and knowledge base.

“Learners use their existing knowledge (i.e. their conceptual ecology), to determine whether different conditions are met,”(Hewson, 1992).  They come into class with so much information fed to them through their personal media outlets that I find it is hard at times to draw their attention away from that focus to create a contradiction that will lead to an accommodation. For example, we are currently focusing on Mars and every student talks about the movie Martian and the 175km wind storms that they have to deal with.  I told the students that really the atmosphere on Mars is only 1% as dense as Earth so winds of that magnitude would have little effect.  To which my class responded, “Don’t ruin the movie!” It is a bit of a comical example but this Net Generation has their heads filled with “false facts” or “non facts” (useless information) through their digital repositories on a daily basis.  This “intuitive or naive knowledge. Its primary characteristic is that it constitutes the person’s reality, something the person believes in,” (Fosnot, Catherine, 1994).) combats on a daily basis with the knowledge I am trying to imbue.  

A second area of interest in childrens concepts  is the preconceived idea that all technology is primarily for consumption.  At the start of this year my grade 5’s felt as if the technology they were using does not work the way they want it to they could just give up or find a new piece of technology that would work.  They had little understanding of what lay behind the technology they were using, how to manipulate it and how to create with it. All of the apps, computers, software and hardware has its base in Math and Science yet we give our students little understanding of what lies under the hood and how to tinker with it. This is why in my class we use Raspberry Pi’s daily in Science and Math to learn physical computing.  To remove the prior conception, which is almost universal in my school, that computers are used to create knowledge not just entertain, word process and research.  I believe we are facing an increasing amount of children with a large amount of knowledge given to them through technology and it is our job to help them culminate that knowledge in meaningful and productive ways.

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.  

Fosnot, Catherine. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, 2013 or 2005 version. Chapter 1: Introduction: Aspects of constructivism by Ernst von Glasersfeld or Chapter 2: Constructivism: A Psychological theory of learning or Cobb, Paul. “Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development.” Educational researcher 23, no. 7 (1994): 13-20. Available in the course readings library.

Hewson, P. W. Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education. June 1992, National Center for Educational Research, Documentation, and Assessment, Madrid, Spain

In A Private Universe, Heather struggles with exploring her understanding of the world. Her own personal theories are engrained and she has trouble abandoning them, even when she can be seen visually struggling with them. Heather is trying to put things together; trying to make sense of the concepts, but appears to confuse herself further. As a strategy, Heather draws out the concepts, attempting to explain her understanding of the seasons, but realizes that her new knowledge does not match with her preconceived theories. Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog (1982) would posit that Heather’s dissatisfaction with her “private universe” has met a condition for conceptual change to occur. Further instruction from her teacher with correct information has put Heather on a path toward correcting her conceptual challenges.

From my experience with middle school students, many misconceptions around science (and in math) concepts stem from previous simplification, such as drawings that are not done in scale or songs developed to assist in memorization. “Students’ minds are not blank slates able to receive instruction in a neutral way,” (Driver, Guesne, Tiberghie, 1985). Much like the visual presented with the Earth’s orbit, students’ past experiences reading books with limited perspectives displayed (blue veins, 2D drawings), show a simplified (and sometimes incorrect) version of events. Other times misconceptions may stem from the very limited time that was spent on a concept – never to be revisited until many years later, or from teachers’ own misunderstanding of concepts (Burgoon, Heddle, Duran, 2011). I believe that initial experiences with science are valuable and peek children’s curiosity of the world around them, however, as we are learning, some students resort back to these incorrect schemes even after presented with additional information.

What is encouraging is the role that technology can play in alleviating or correcting some of these initial misconceptions, for children, parents, and teachers. Children are able to explore and engage in simulations and 3D experiences with a variety of scientific concepts – and from an early age. Technology allows students to test a concept at school and often continue the learning or discussion at home if the technology is available. Correcting misconceptions in other ways, other than a worksheet or textbook, or talking to the teacher, allows the student to take ownership of their learning and can afford them choice.

If we don’t challenge and facilitate correction of students’ preconceived incorrect beliefs, they will continue to build on these inaccurate or incomplete foundations.

Burgoon, J.N., Heddle, M.L., Duran, E. (2011). Re-examining the similarities between teacher and student conceptions about physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(2), 101-114. DOI 10.1007/s10972-010-9196-x

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

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. Science Education, 66, 211-227.