A colleague and I were talking about our recent science units. He mentioned that several of his students still had some "wacky" ideas about certain concepts. I noticed from my pre- and posttests that a few of my students still had misconceptions too. What can we do to assess and address students' science ideas?
Where do students' "wacky" science ideas come from?
Our students are not blank slates. They come to school with a wide range of experiences that have shaped their science understandings--reading books, watching TV, playing video games. Sometimes these sources get the science wrong (for example, the popular Pokemon game uses the term evolution instead of metamorphosis when referring to creatures going through life stages). In a study of 79 children's books, Trundle and Troland (2005) found that many books reinforced misconceptions about Moon phases and contained incorrect pictorial representations. Everyday language also contributes to scientific misunderstandings. Phrases such as "shut the door or you'll let the heat out" can cause students to think that heat is a substance, not a form of energy. Interactions with phenomena can lead to inaccurate scientific understandings. For example, although any two objects will fall at the same speed in a vacuum, in everyday life a feather falls slower than a coin because of air resistance. Finally, students can construct inaccurate meanings from science instruction itself. Students can ignore teacher talk, use "noises that sound scientific" to represent incomplete understanding, or be confused by mismatches between their language and the teacher's (Osborne and Freyberg 1985). From many years of research about student science ideas, we know that student science misconceptions are prevalent, strongly held, and highly resistant to change.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
How do I find out what misconceptions my students hold?
Researchers have used a number of strategies to assess student science ideas. The most common strategy is the individual interview (Osborne and Freyburg 1985). Interviewers ask students to explain phenomena and probe for more information. Or they provide words and pictures for students to sort based on their understanding of concepts like animal, living, matter, and electricity. However, the individual interview strategy may not be practical for the classroom. Other useful tools for assessing student science ideas include the two-tiered test (where a multiple-choice item is followed by the opportunity to explain one's reasoning), open-ended questions that lead to children writing and drawing about their ideas, and concept maps. Page Keeley and her colleagues (2005, 2007) designed a set of formative assessment probes to uncover student ideas. However, the simplest way to assess student ideas might be to listen to the students during class discussions and pay attention to what they write and draw in their science notebooks.
What misconceptions I can expect?
Teachers do not have to interview or test every student to find out their ideas--many science misconceptions are quite common and can be predicted. The internet is a valuable resource for delineating possible student misconceptions before the start of a unit. For example, some university science teacher educators have websites that list student science ideas (Hanuscin 2001). Some researchers have compiled the findings from numerous studies of children's ideas in various science topic areas (see Driver et al. 1994). Other books describe in-depth studies of student learning in one area, like Shapiro's (1994) study of fifth graders learning about light. Some science curriculum materials also list common student misconceptions. For example, in a unit about force and motion, it is common for many students to think that a force is needed to keep an object that is moving in motion or have trouble understanding how a wall or a table can exert a force on their hands. When teachers are aware of these areas of potential difficulties, they can begin to plan instruction that will address student misconceptions.
What strategies can I use to address students' misconceptions?
There is widespread agreement among science education researchers that the first step in students changing their conceptual understanding is becoming dissatisfied with their current ideas. Activities that challenge students' ideas, such as discrepant events, create disequilibrium that students want to resolve. Furthermore, students need to be presented with new concepts that are reasonable and meaningful to them (Shapiro 1994). Many researchers have found that a learning cycle approach (Brown and Abell 2007), with opportunities for exploration and science talk, can lead to conceptual change. For example, Gang (1995) found that using a learning cycle with middle school students to help them understand Archimedes Principle was more effective than traditional presentation and demonstration. Hardy and colleagues (2006) investigated third-grade student learning about floating and sinking. They found that students who received high instructional support in the form of discussion, reflection, and connecting concepts developed more coherent understandings of floating and sinking than students with less instructional support. Maria (1997) followed one boy from kindergarten through third grade, tracking his understanding of the causes of day and night and the seasons. Developmentally appropriate instructional scaffolds (e.g., exploring models, engaging in hands-on activities, and discussing what he read) helped him restructure his ideas. Good science instruction can lead to conceptual change--that's what Trundle and her colleagues found (2007) when studying fourth graders' learning about phases of the Moon. What we learn from all of these researchers is that when students actively participate in science by doing and thinking and communicating, conceptual change is possible.
References
Brown, P.L., and S.K. Abell. 2007. Examining the learning cycle. Science and Children 44(5): 58-59.
Driver, R., A. Squires, P. Rushworth, and V. Wood-Robinson. 1994. Making sense of secondary science. London: Routledge.
Gang, S. 1995. Removing Preconceptions with a "Learning Cycle." The Physics Teacher 33: 346-354.
Hanuscin, D. 2001. Misconceptions in science E328: Elementary methods. Available online at www.indiana.edu/~w505a/studwork/deborah/index.html.
Hardy, I., E. Stern, A. Jonen, and K. Moller. 2006. Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students' understanding of "floating and sinking." Journal of Educational Psychology 98(2): 307-326.
Keeley, P., F. Eberle, and L. Farrin. 2005. Uncovering student ideas in science: 25 formative assessment probes vol. 1. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Keeley, P., F. Eberle, and J. Tugel. 2007. Uncovering student ideas in science: 25 more formative assessment probes vol. 2. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Maria, K. 1997. A case study of conceptual change in a young child. The Elementary School Journal 98(1): 67-88.
Osborne, R., and P. Freyberg. 1985. Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Shapiro, B. 1994. What children bring to light: A constructivist perspective on children's learning in science. New York: Teachers College Press.
Trundle, K.C., R.K. Atwood, and J.E. Christopher. 2007. Fourth-grade elementary students' conceptions of standards-based lunar concepts. International Journal of Science Education 29(5): 595-616.
Trundle, K.C., and T.H. Troland. 2005. The Moon in children's literature. Science and Children 43(2): 40-43.
S. Rena Smith is a doctoral student in science education at the University of Missouri (MU) with experience teaching upper elementary and middle school students. Sandra K. Abell (AbellS@missouri.edu), an experienced teacher of elementary science, is Curators' Professor of Science Education at MU, where she directs the MU Science Education Center.
No comments:
Post a Comment