The nature of science is such that it challenges students to grasp a conceptual understanding of the world around them. This inevitably leads to misconceptions as students try to grapple the way they view the world and trying to understand the fundamental laws that govern it. It is therefore no surprise that numerous studies have been done to try and understand how students’ misconceptions arise (Confrey, 1990). Some researchers have argued that it is fundamental for science teachers to have knowledge of the main misconceptions students possess in order for learning to take place (Sadler & Sonnet, 2016).
Students’ misconceptions stem from contradictions that arise from the way students view the world they have of the world versus the accepted view of the world (Confrey, 1990). Researchers have noted that misconceptions can be very difficult to overcome (Burrows & Mooring, 2014) because they require a radical shift in the learner’s view of the world. As Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog (1982) explained, conceptual change, which is what is required for misconceptions to be altered, requires assimilation or accommodation of new concepts. If the learner is unable to incorporate the new notion or modify their conceptual understanding to fit the new notion then the misconception will remain.
In the video, A Private Universe (Schneps, 1989), Heather is faced with struggle of trying to make sense of new information presented to her about why seasons occur. Heather had a conceptual understanding of this phenomenon that was developed, from her interaction with the world, knowledge given to her by previous teachers and from other sources of information such as books. These sources provided Heather with the information on which she built a conceptual framework of why seasonal changes occur. When she was presented with the new information, the video shows her trying to assimilate the information into her conceptual framework and eventually her willingness to accommodate the information into her conceptual framework once she lost faith in her previous conceptual understanding. The video highlights the rigidity of the conceptual framework students have and how difficult it can be to try and reshape it.
In chemistry many of the misconception students possess stem from them trying to relate abstract and microscopic principles in a concrete and macroscopic way. One area in particular that proves rather challenging is the concept of chemical bonding. Burrows and Mooring (2014) note that chemical bonding proves to be a challenging concept for students to grasp because it requires that students have a proper knowledge structure. A knowledge structure is “the schema in which students organise and relate various concepts in order to make sense of a particular topic” (Burrows & Mooring, 2014, p.53). The understanding of chemical bonding is dependent on so many other concepts that if the knowledge structure is poor then students will have significant difficulties and misconceptions will exist.
Misconceptions can be overcome by guiding students into reorganising their conceptual framework to remove them. Technology can be vital in this regard by helping both students and teachers to see the conceptual framework the student possesses and what changes need to be made to alter it. For example, digital technology affords us the opportunity to simulate and model experiments that help in the building of the conceptual framework. If we therefore use the technology so that students demonstrate their understanding of a particular scientific process, teachers would get to understand where exactly the trouble lies in their conceptual framework and hence be better able to guide the student into fixing it.
References
1. Burrows, N., & Mooring, S. (2015). Using concept mapping to uncover students’
knowledge structures of chemical bonding concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 53-56.
2. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics,
science and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56.
3. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation
of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science education, 66(2), 211- 227.
4. Sadler, P. (Producer) & Schneps, M. (Director) (1989). A private universe:
Misconceptions that block learning. [Motion picture]. (Available from Harvard University & Smithsonian Institution)
5. Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2016). Understanding misconceptions: Teaching and
learning in middle school physical science. American Educator, 40(1), 26-32.
Dear Kamille,
Thank you for your thoughts. Your example about chemistry clearly demonstrates the associative nature of scientific concepts. Let’s continue your discussion.
Indeed, learning concepts rarely stand-alone. Rather, information is highly associative. Confrey (1990) quotes Pines (1985) in the discussion about the properties of knowledge (p.21). The scholar identifies concepts as a network of logically connected nodes and that the concepts are mutual independent. Another constructivist theorist, Fosnot, he agrees that knowledge is a perceive construct that requires reorganization. Learners have “to reformulate the relationship between the cognitive subject’s conceptual structures and that subject’s experiential world” (Fosnot, 2013, p.185) At times, this organization may be inaccurate. In this discussion, by reorganizing concepts, one can represent ideas more accurately. Essentially, this is one perspective of accommodation. Re-representation of organizing structures redefines relationships, hence, changing the initial understanding of how concepts are related.
More importantly, there is a window of opportunity that these structures can be modified. Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog (1982) claims that learners has to come to recognize that their line of thinking is faulty and does not fully explain nor support problems. Specifically, “If the dissatisfaction with the existing conception created by its inability to make sense of experience is followed by learning of an intelligible alternative which resolves or promises to resolve some of the anomalies of its predecessor, then the new conception may be plausible”(p.221). Hence, educators should develop more competencies to recognize and fully utilize teaching moments.
Alice
Reference
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
Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, 2nd Ed. Teachers College Press. Available from: Teachers College Press and Amazon Kindle.
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. Available from Google Scholar as a pdf download.
Hi Alice,
Thank you so much for comment.
I too, found the Posner et. al (1982) argument about students needing to recognise that their conception has anomalies before they are willing to accept a substitute theory to be so accurate. When I am explaining something to my students that is not lining up with their conceptual understanding, two things tend to happen- they either ask more questions to try and get it to fit in their conceptual understanding or they will say “ok miss” which is code for I will choose to not understand this concept. Either way it will not fit in their conceptual framework unless it addresses issues they deem to exist. This is why it is so critical that we understand where these misconceptions exist and try to correct them or true learning will not take place.