Category Archives: A. Conceptual Challenges

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.

Common Misconceptions

Watching the video on common misconceptions about the causes of the seasons and the phases of the moon, I was reminded of when I taught Biology 12 this summer and just how challenging it was for students to grasp the mental model I was trying to communicate.  I tried to be creative in how I delivered my lessons by using analogies and manipulatives but still I found many students would erroneously add details or fill in gaps with incorrect information.  Why weren’t they able to acknowledge gaps in their understanding and ask for clarification?  Why did they invent facts?  I don’t believe they were simply too embarrassed to acknowledge their misconception.  Our brains are great at finding patterns and filling in for missed information.  In the image below, it is difficult not to see the unbordered white triangle in the middle.  Our brain fills in what it can’t see.  I feel like this is analogous to how students fill in missing information in order  to complete a mental model of a particular process.  Unfortunately in science, if these assumptions go unchecked, students risk carrying the burden of their false assumptions year after year.  I no longer rely solely on written output to find out what my students understand.  I have long since adopted oral assessments whereby students are asked to explain their understanding of processes fundamental to the unit of study.

In many cases, the students are actually taught misconceptions.  There is mounting research that shows that misconceptions concerning science are prevalent among teachers.  Nancy J. Pelaez et al. (2005) for instance, investigated the prevalence of blood circulation misconception  among prospective elementary teacher in the US and found that “70% of prospective elementary teachers did not understand the dual blood circulation pathway, 33% were confused about blood vessels, 55% had wrong ideas about gas exchange, 19% had trouble with gas transport and utilization, and 20% did not understand lung function”.  I would be curious to see how many of my colleagues would agree that veins in their wrists are blue because they carry deoxygenated blood (deoxygenated blood is still red). My hope is that through greater inquiry based education, teachers will be less required to the absolute bearers of all knowledge and can focus on teaching students the skills required to consolidate, criticize and explain information.

“Kanizsa Triangle.” Optics For Kids – Optical Illusions. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

Pelaez, N. J. “Prevalence of blood circulation misconceptions among prospective elementary teachers.” AJP: Advances in Physiology Education 29.3 (2005): 172-81. Web.

Watching A Private Universe (Shneps & Sadler, 1987) I was astounded that not only did so many of the graduate and high school students have misconceptions about the seasons, but also that they all seemed to have the same misconception. It was then that I started to question my own knowledge and understanding of the reason for seasons, checking my information by researching the question. The information that the students were giving about the reason we have seasons was logical and made sense given their initial information and the representative drawing from the text. I was enlightened when the video manipulated the drawing from the text from the side view to the bird’s eye view, demonstrating how the elliptical orbit could be misconstrued. I had never thought about this aspect before now.

Not being a particularly strong student in math or science, I have always felt that I would not be a very strong teacher of these subjects also. “Teachers cannot help children learn things they themselves do not understand” (Ball, 1991). As an elementary school teacher I am required to teach both of these and cover quite a quantity of concepts within the year. In science we cover chemistry, physics, matter & energy, and biology within two terms, which can be daunting for someone who made it through most of high school and university with little or no math and science instruction. In my early years of teaching I relied heavily on the science text books, trusting that they would allow me to impart the information and knowledge that the students were required to know. As I read the articles and watch the video I am left wondering how much my teaching contributed to some of the misconceptions my students may have had regarding science and math. Since then, I have developed my own knowledge through experimentation, research, and additional courses.  I have realized some of my own misconceptions and with that have been able to identify some of my student’s misconceptions. Now that I am much more competent in my science and math teaching, it is easier for me to seek out student misconceptions in order to design lessons and activities to help students adjust their thinking.

In a research paper conducted by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the relationship between teacher knowledge and student learning was studied, and concluding that student learning is directly related to teacher knowledge. “If teachers hold such misconceptions themselves or simply are unaware that their students have such ideas, their attempts at teaching important concepts may be compromised” (Sadler et al, 2013). These leads me to two questions: How can teachers identify their own misconceptions and how can they better understand and identify misconceptions of their students?

Confrey notes that “children develop ideas about their world, develop meanings for words used in science, and develop strategies to obtain explanations of how and why things behave as they do, and that these naive ideas cannot be easily ignored or replaced” (Confrey, 1990). It is important for teachers to be able to tease out these misconceptions by probing a student’s conceptual framework using direct questioning allowing them to develop effective lessons and activities to provide opportunities for students to discover new information and correct their misconceptions. Previous research on student’s misconceptions shows that student’s have difficulty assimilating and acquiring scientific knowledge if their misconceptions are ignored or not adequately addressed. One way for teachers to address this gap is to consider that an emphasis on identifying and remediating holes in the teacher’s knowledge may be more helpful for the science teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom (Sadler et al).

Providing hands on activities and experiments for students to work through will allow them to interpret their results as opposed to arriving at an expected result. Technology such as virtual experiments, could be used in a classroom setting where the resources are inadequate for real experimentation. Programs such as Skype can be used to visit high school or college labs and see experiments performed live and allow the students to ask questions directly to the teacher or students performing the experiment. I have done this with our local high school science teacher, who was very enthusiastic about participating, and the students were fascinated with the results. The key is to allow the student to discover the science in order to add to their knowledge and understanding to help dispel misconceptions.

References

Students conceptual understandings and ideas are likely long established prior to entering the classroom. While these can be based on personal experiences or long-held beliefs, these ideas are, unfortunately not always correct. These overall themes are evident in the short documentary, A Private Universe (1987), as well as presented in the readings on constructivism (Fosnot, 2013). Both the video and reading establish that students have their own pre-existing concepts and notions, which ultimately need to be “straightened out” as new concepts emerge and compete. Fosnot further argues that the role of educators is to change not necessarily “dispense knowledge” but also to provide “opportunities and incentives” to construct learning.

The article selected for further examination studies several different misconceptions held by both teacher and students in regards to the physical sciences (Burgoon, Heddle, & Duran, 2010). The misunderstanding of particular interest is one regarding the general concept of gravity. The article discusses the common confusion with the concept in which objects at different heights experience a different force of gravity. The study confirmed a general belief and association by both teachers and students alike that objects at a higher elevation are experiencing “more gravity” wherein fact gravity is always present regardless of height or elevation. The article addresses some of the concerns raised in educating students if teachers themselves held misconceptions but proposed some solutions such as increasing awareness and professional development.

In regards to digital technologies and instructional activities to help nurture student understanding, there are online simulations, phet labs, and video clips. Fosnot, however, would argue that students need opportunities to change and construct their learning, to help my own students overcome the gravitational misconceptions explored by Burgoon, Heddle, and Duran (2010), I use a combination of digital motion detectors linked to graphing to allowing students to create their own explorations on relationship between gravity and height. By dropping objects from various elevations, students are able to examine and confirm the notion that the force of gravity and acceleration remain constant.

References:

Burgoon, J., Heddle, M., & Duran, E. (2010). Re-examining the similarities between teacher and

student conceptions about physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7),

859-872. http://10.1007/s10972-009-9177-0

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.

After watching the video the concepts within it rang true to me. In my experiences in science, many concepts were taught only once and models, simulations and hands-on experience were limited to what resources were available, which were often slim to none. If models were available, the educators usually stood at the front of the class with the model in front of them as they “taught” us the concept. We did not handle or construct the models. One thing I found interesting was how strongly the students held on to their personal scientific theories. It seems that early experiences learning scientific concepts are fraught with misconceptions that may not be challenged and thus taken as the ultimate truth. I wonder if this is because as children we were not taught to question what we saw in books or what we were taught. We implicitly trusted these sources, including our understanding of 3 dimensional phenomenon which was more often than not, represented in 2-D form (in drawings, graphs, etc.).

A common misconception I have is how our ears “hear” sound. I know it has something to do with vibrations hitting our eardrums, and that the hairs in the ears are called cilia and that the hairs are very delicate and if you damage them you will damage your hearing. Beyond that my lack of full understanding comes to the fore. I remember finding the concept fascinating as I read about it in a science book I had in my home book collection. I read it over and over again as a child. But now that I reflect, I never had a chance in my formal education to revisit the concept; so much of it was lost from my memory. I learned about the parts of the body and some of their rudimentary functions but not in depth. No concepts in biology were hands-on or taught so that we could actually experience the ideas or sensations. No simulations were provided. I do remember watching one video in health class which showed how our digestive system works. I remember it to this day because I could actually “see” inside the body with the use of a mini camera. WOW! powerful stuff.

When I searched for an article about hearing, I found the following information which you can access in the link provided:

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/how-do-we-hear

So, after reading the information I still had many unanswered questions namely:

What is a sound wave?

How do bones amplify or increase sound? (An analogy might help)

What does it mean when it says hair cells “ride the wave”?

And so on….

Digital technology would allow scientific concepts to “leap from the page” and become more interactive. Simulations, for example, can help students to understand concepts more fully. Being able to take virtual field trips to talk to and learn from scientists around the globe could deepen understanding and allow students to ask important and unanswered questions. Allowing students time to use technology to research a subject area of interest and to use information from a variety of sources including Blogs, videos, simulations, interactive games etc. could also lead to engagement and deeper understandings.

So the question is how can we use digital technology and instructional activities to help children address these conceptions? Kozma (2003) looked at patterns of innovative classroom practices supported by technology, which included the primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary grades. In many of the case studies, science was the subject area.  The case studies found that when students use technology to solve complex, authentic problems that cross disciplinary boundaries, and when educators facilitate this through technology, students are engaged and successful. This constructivist approach promotes knowledge building and moves the students from vessels into which information is imparted into constructors of their own knowledge. The stated impact of the innovation on students was quite broad. The largest number of cases claimed that students acquired ICT skills as a result of the innovation (75%). A large majority of cases claimed students developed positive attitudes toward learning or school (68%), acquired new subject matter knowledge (63%), or acquired collaborative skills (63%) (Kozma, 2003).

Many of these cases from around the world had qualities in common including working collaboratively, using technological tools to research, publish work and create new products. In addition, educators moved more toward facilitation as opposed to being in the “traditional” role of teacher as imparter of knowledge. In fact, Kozma (2003) found that when students used technology to research, solve, design and self- assess they improved their problem solving skills, information management skills, collaboration and communication skills. So, it seems that technology can help us with conceptual understandings, but it also depends on how the educator allows the technology to be used.

References

How do we hear? (2015, July 20). Retrieved from https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/how-do-we-hear.

Robert B. Kozma (2003) Technology and Classroom Practices, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2003.10782399