In 1968, David Ausubel wrote “The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly.” (Ausubel, 1968, p. vi). Unlike an earlier idea that learner are blank slates that need to be filled by the teacher, more recently, the Personal Construct Theory recognizes that the person is a meaning-make, capable being an active participant in their learning, and of making judgements about their interpretations of evidences (Shapiro, 1988). If students enter a topic or concept with various misconceptions or alternative frameworks, this will negatively influence both their ability and willingness to incorporate new understandings. In science, this is quite prevalent, perhaps because we first use simple analogies to explain a concept and then elaborate more fully later, or perhaps the nature of science allows children to make their own observations and interpretations first. Whatever the reason, many students have misconceptions about various aspects of science. For example, many of my Bio11 students believe penguins have fur not feathers!
I have chosen to work with the misconception that gases don’t have mass, or even have a negative mass. This common misconception is likely due to students observations that adding more gas to a helium balloon causes it to float higher (Mayer, 2011), or trapping air bubbles under a toy in the bathtub allows it to float instead of sinking. According to Mayer, (2011), even after students performed an experiment in a sealed flask demonstrating that the mass doesn’t change when a substance (iodine) goes from a solid to a gas, the majority still stuck to their false preconceptions and assumed they must have made an error in the experiment. This lead Mayer to recognize that preconceptions are very difficult to remove (Mayer, 2011). This phenomenon was also seen in the video clip about Heather and how she continued to stick to her theories about the strange curlicue orbit of earth and how light bounces to give indirect light.
So what do we do about these misconceptions. Elliot (2016) notes that teachers who are aware of common misconceptions among their students were more effective, and that the common teacher approaches of avoiding students’ existing beliefs altogether or telling students clearly they are wrong and that they need to think differently are ineffective. Posner et al (1982) view learning as a “process of conceptual change” where accommodation of misconceptions is needed to reorganize their current beliefs. For accommodation to occur, learners need to be dissatisfied with their current idea or model, and the new model must be rational, intelligible, plausible, and fruitful for further research (Posner et al., 1982). Teachers can use anomalies to point out limitations of misconceptions, thereby bringing the cognitive conflict (dissatisfaction) that drives new understandings (Elliot, 2016, Posner et al., 1982). I would suggest that using technology is a good way to do this for many abstract concepts. There are many online simulations (for example PhET) that enable learners to view the concepts, play with them, and visualize the greater explanatory ability of the scientific idea such as the states of matter and properties of gases (https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/states-of-matter).
- Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
- Elliott, K., & Pillman, A. (2016). Making science misconceptions work for us.Teaching Science, 62(1), 36-39.
- Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (1987). A private universe. ISBN: 1-57680-404-6. Retrieved from http://learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9
- Mayer, K. (2011). Addressing students’ misconceptions about gases, mass, and composition. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(1), 111.
- 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.
- 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.
Hi David,
I liked how you drew out Elliot’s point that “the common teacher approaches of avoiding students’ existing beliefs altogether or telling students clearly they are wrong and that they need to think differently are ineffective”. I think we may have a tendency to do this because we subconsciously still cling to our own ideological misconception that children are unequal in the power-dynamics of teacher-learner. In other words, we believe that the children’s job is to learn from us, they should know they are “less” than us in terms of understanding the world, and therefore they should be prepared to readily accept when we, as their “superior” tell them they’re ideas are wrong and must be replaced with X, without need to investigate that on their own or to question whether it is, indeed, so. I wonder if we believe that because children are younger than us and possess less experience in the world, they are less competent as a learner with the ability to recognize their own thinking and revise it? Perhaps we struggle with accepting Personal Construct Theory for those humans our culture instinctively views as “less” than the adult learner and still quietly hold on to the “tabula rasa” way of relating to children that we were schooled under.
I like your idea of using technology, particularly videos or simulations, that pose the problem of anomalies in order to create cognitive dissonance and confront misconceptions. I think we must also remember how we, as adults, handle being told that what we believe to be true about the universe and the way things works is wrong and we should believe something else. Often times, such a confrontation will be required multiple times before we are even ready to consider that maybe our cherished private theories are, indeed, incomplete, or even completely erroneous. As teachers, we must recognize that children will hold just as tenaciously, if not more so, to the things they think they know and we must be gentle, persistent, and respectful as we nudge them towards greater self-discovery and exploration.
Thanks for sharing. (And nice to see you again!) 🙂
Jan
Thanks Jan, nice to see you again.
I agree, that to rethink our ideas takes repeated exposure. I find children interesting in their approach though, it is not so much logic, rationality, or even right/wrong but the SOURCE of their info that resonates the deepest with them. eg. My mom said… My dad is the strongest… I recall trying to argue with one of my kids in grade 2 about a concept their teacher had told them about science which I knew was false. No matter what evidence I gave, how I explained it, or how much I argued, I simply couldn’t beat “but my TEACHER said!”