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
You make an interesting point about Heather’s conception never having been challenged and not creating that cognitive dissonance necessary for her learning. As I watched the teacher in the video teach, I was struck by how many times she asked “every body got that?” and then when there was no show of hands she kept going. I suspect I have personally been guilty of this, especially early in my teaching career or when I have inadequately prepared for formative assessment throughout the lesson. This is where I think an all-student response system is essential so that teachers can access what students are thinking at all times. Dylan Wiliam in “Embedding Formative Assessment’ discusses the importance of formative assessment that moves student learning forward on very short cycles. Teachers think the end of a lesson is sufficient but Wiliam suggest these feedback cycles should occur within minutes! Given the importance of countering misconceptions and the way we saw Heather’s misconceptions slip past her teacher, I would agree with WIliam: we must have a way to access what students are thinking. Be it whiteboards in students’ hands, visual journals with a visible thinking routine, or a technology-supported response system, we need access to student thinking and must provide feedback before errors become misconceptions.
Thanks Tracy,
I think a lot of us are guilty of those stock phrases that don’t amount to anything. When I think about it I don’t think “everybody got that” has ever elicited a meaningful dialogue.
I completely agree about the feedback cycles occurring almost immediately. Too often we miss these critical moments. Students then leave the classroom either not understanding the concept, or worse believing something that isn’t true.
I feel as if we should expect our that parts of a lesson will not be understood and creating an environment where it is deemed normal to question, or even expected, is a positive exercise.
The questions I am pondering now are how to create this valuable feedback opportunities? What kind of platform is best and how much time should we devote?
Hello Ryan,
You have made some great points in your post about “meeting students where they are” and I think this is one of the most important lessons I have learned in my short experience of teaching. I certainly believe that activating prior knowledge and knowing the current status of the existing knowledge is extremely important for a child’s knowledge-base progress. Although, it makes me curious whether knowing where the child is at before teaching new concepts guarantees that all of the existing knowledge does not have “misconceptions” in them. For example, a child may solve a question that requires him/ her to use their computational skills to get to the answer; however, they may not understand what is going on behind the scenes. Growing up, I was always very good at getting the right answer but I had no clue what the “surface area” of a circle really meant. I knew the formula and how to get the answer but I couldn’t explain if anybody asked what does the surface area of a circle really represent. I had created my own conceptions or perhaps “misconceptions” regarding the surface area of a circle. Therefore, I think it is important to check for concept understanding rather than what a student is capable of “doing” when trying to “meet the student where they are at”. Just my two cents. Great post, overall!
I agree with you Gursimran and I think checking for concept understanding is one of the biggest faults Heather made. I think its as simple as trying to build on a faulty foundation. If a teacher takes for granted that a student fully understands a fundamental concept to their lesson the later construction of knowledge will be faulty.
Some teachers might argue it isn’t their job to check for prior knowledge or understanding but they are wrong. It is our job because every class of students is on a continuum. We are required to do everything in our power to ensure all students have every chance to learn and discover. We can’t assume they learned and retained everything from previous encounters.