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 adequately grasp certain concepts within human physiology. To be fair, Biology requires the art of imagination- the ability to animate a sequence of events from information taken from text and diagrams. I will note, I was teaching to 24 students often outside in parks while backpacking through Belize and the internet, let alone Youtube, was not at my disposal. So I relied on vivid storytelling and gave emotion and relevance to fairly dry and ordinary process like DNA replication and the beloved Kreb’s cycle. I was hoping to pass on the mental model I had spent years crafting in my mind over the years by using using analogies and manipulatives but I I found many students would erroneously add details or fill in gaps with incorrect information. I was surprised that they decidedly chose to invent facts when their mental model failed instead of seeking further clarification. It should be noted these kids were extremely bright and motivated. I was never given the impression that they were too shy to acknowledge their own misconception. There was something going on subconsciously. I assumed our brains are great at finding patterns and filling in for any missed information. Similar with Heather, who filled in her own gaps in understanding with erroneous information about celestial motion and optics.
To further support this theory, take a look at the familiar image below. Each time I see this image I struggle to not to see the unbordered white triangle in the middle. Similar to how our brain fills in what it can’t see, students fill in for missing information with the most plausible explanation. Unfortunately in science, if these assumptions go unchecked, students risk carrying the burden of their misconceptions year after year.
My experience has lead me to believe that oral assessment, where a teacher makes time to listen to the students defend ideas and construct explanations based on scientific arguments, is fundamental to good assessment. I was intrigued when reading an article by Rivard and Straw (2000) who claim “that talk is important for sharing, clarifying, and distributing knowledge, while asking questions, hypothesizing, explaining, and formulating ideas are all important mechanisms [for learning]”. In their study, students were given similar tasks based on similar content yet one group (T) discussed a particular problem, another group (W) wrote responses to each task and a third group (T+W) discussed and wrote responses. They found that both discussing and writing are important mechanisms for transforming rudimentary ideas into coherent and structured arguments for students. This supports my advocacy for greater oral assessment in the classroom, whereby students are provided opportunities to orally describe their understanding of particular processes.
While students may be prone to inventing misconceptions, in many cases, students are, in fact, taught misconceptions. There is mounting research that shows that misconceptions concerning science are prevalent among teachers who then pass them along to their students. 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”. While many of you might be concerned by these statistics, let’s take moment for introspection. How many of you believe that your veins are blue because they carry deoxygenated blood? Don’t worry if you do, this is a common misconception even amongst many well-educated adults. In fact, we all hold misconceptions about science and even our correct understanding of science is laced with generalizations and assumptions that are not always correct. The future will lie in teaching our students how to criticize information and always seek the most robust understanding of scientific process possible.
References:
Pelaez, N. J. “Prevalence of blood circulation misconceptions among prospective elementary teachers.” AJP: Advances in Physiology Education 29.3 (2005): 172-81. Web.
Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science education, 84(5), 566-593.
