Elementary Teachers’ Understanding of Students’ Science Misconceptions: Implications for Practice and Teacher Education
Post on 15-Jul-2016
<ul><li><p>Elementary Teachers Understanding of StudentsScience Misconceptions: Implications for Practiceand Teacher Education</p><p>Susan Gomez-Zwiep</p><p>Published online: 11 June 2008</p><p> Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2008</p><p>Abstract This study sought to determine what elementary teachers know aboutstudent science misconceptions and how teachers address student misconceptions in</p><p>instruction. The sample included 30 teachers from California with at least 1-year of</p><p>experience teaching grades 3, 4, and 5. A semistructured interview was used. The</p><p>interview transcripts were transcribed and coded under the following categories:</p><p>definition of misconceptions, sources of misconceptions, development of miscon-</p><p>ceptions, and teaching strategies for addressing misconceptions. The results suggest</p><p>that, although most of the teachers are aware of misconceptions, they do not</p><p>understand how they develop or fully appreciate their impact on their instruction.</p><p>Keywords Inservice teacher education Science education Concept formation Teaching methods Preservice teacher education Misconceptions</p><p>Introduction</p><p>Misconceptions appear across all areas of science and within all age groups.</p><p>Empirical evidence has shown that children have qualitative differences in his or her</p><p>understanding of science that is often inconsistent with what the teacher intended</p><p>through his or her instruction (Bar 1989; Bar et al. 1994; Pine et al. 2001; Tao and</p><p>Gunstone 1999; Trend 2001). Research findings consistently show that misconcep-</p><p>tions are deeply rooted, often remaining even after instruction (Eryilmaz 2002).</p><p>However, misconceptions are more than misunderstandings about a concept.</p><p>Misconceptions are part of a larger knowledge system that involves many</p><p>interrelated concepts that students use to make sense of their experiences</p><p>S. Gomez-Zwiep (&)Science Education, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd.,</p><p>Long Beach, CA 90840, USA</p><p>e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org</p><p>123</p><p>J Sci Teacher Educ (2008) 19:437454</p><p>DOI 10.1007/s10972-008-9102-y</p></li><li><p>(Southerland et al. 2001). Misconceptions are extensions of effective knowledge</p><p>that function productively within a specific context. These misconceptions become</p><p>apparent when students attempt to use their knowledge beyond the context in which</p><p>the knowledge functions effectively (Smith et al. 1993). Thus, since misconceptions</p><p>are often integrated with other knowledge, they may include aspects of both expert</p><p>and novice understandings and may be useful in constructing accurate scientific</p><p>understandings.</p><p>A gap remains between what research has revealed about misconceptions and</p><p>knowledge of how this research is applied in the classroom. There is a significant</p><p>body of research on instructional strategies shown to be effective at dealing with</p><p>student misconceptions (Ausubel 1968; Guzzetti 2000; Posner et al. 1982). The</p><p>research-based strategies have demonstrated some success at addressing miscon-</p><p>ceptions by expanding student thinking through dialogue and experimentation.</p><p>Although these strategies often involve some form of activity, these activities are</p><p>selected to specifically confront the misconception by presenting unexpected results</p><p>not previously considered by the learner. The teacher is a vital piece in the success</p><p>of these strategies, often facilitating student thinking through questioning and</p><p>student discourse. What limited research exists regarding teachers and misconcep-</p><p>tions has shown that preservice and novice teachers are often unaware that their</p><p>students may have misconceptions. In addition, even when teachers are aware of</p><p>misconceptions, they are unlikely to use any knowledge of misconceptions in their</p><p>instruction (Halim and Meerah 2002). Meyer (2004) also examined expert teachers</p><p>and found that they have very complex conceptions of prior knowledge and made</p><p>significant use of their students prior knowledge, such as misconceptions, in</p><p>instruction. Past research has focused on the extremes of the teaching experience</p><p>spectrum, novice to expert (Halim and Meerah 2002; Meyer 2004). However, there</p><p>remains a gap regarding the teacher who falls somewhere between an expert and a</p><p>novice. Little is known about what the teachers know about this topicteachers</p><p>who have experience teaching elementary school, but do not have any particular</p><p>training in the area of misconceptions and natural sciences beyond what they have</p><p>experienced in their teacher preparation programs, teacher professional develop-</p><p>ment, or both. This study will attempt to identify to what extent teachers across a</p><p>range of experience are aware of how misconceptions develop in students and if</p><p>these teachers are aware of and use techniques to mediate misconceptions in their</p><p>students.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Terminology</p><p>There are several terms in the research used in this area: misconceptions (Bar and</p><p>Travis 1991; Eryilmaz 2002; Schmidt 1997; Sneider and Ohadi 1998), nave views</p><p>or conception (Bar 1989; Hesse and Anderson 1992; Pine et al. 2001), preconcep-</p><p>tions (Benson et al. 1993), alternative views (Bar and Travis 1991; Gabel Stockton</p><p>et al. 2001; Sequeira and Leite 1991; Trend 2001), and alternative conceptions</p><p>438 S. Gomez-Zwiep</p><p>123</p></li><li><p>(Hewson and Hewson 2003). Teachers were found to be much more familiar with</p><p>the term misconception in the pilot study used to craft the interview questions and</p><p>it is for that reason that this term is used in this study.</p><p>Research Participants</p><p>The sample consisted of 30 teachers, representing 12 schools in seven different</p><p>districts across the state of California. The teachers had experience teaching third,</p><p>fourth, and fifth grade students. The level of experience ranged from 1 to 30 years of</p><p>teaching (Table 1). The intent of the study was to investigate teachers with</p><p>experience teaching elementary school, but teachers who would not be considered</p><p>an expert or a novice. Thus, the only requirements for participation were at least</p><p>1 year of teaching experience in a K8 setting and a valid elementary teaching</p><p>credential (certified to teach multiple subjects grades K8). The sample included</p><p>teachers from a wide range of school environments covering bilingual and English-</p><p>only classrooms, high-performing and low-performing schools, rural and urban</p><p>schools, and all levels of socioeconomic neighborhoods. It was assumed that some</p><p>level of expertise is necessary for a teacher to understand misconceptions in general.</p><p>Therefore, the selection of these teachers was based on recommendations from</p><p>principals, colleagues, and professional development consultants who were</p><p>contacted via telephone and e-mail. These individuals were requested to recommend</p><p>elementary teachers who taught in grades three, four, or five and who did not have</p><p>any specialized science training beyond the their credential program. In addition,</p><p>teachers were requested who were responsible for teaching science in a general</p><p>education setting, rather than a science-specific setting. Once a teacher was</p><p>recommended, I (the author of this article) contacted them either by telephone or by</p><p>e-mail to arrange a time and place for the interview.</p><p>Construction of Interview Questions</p><p>A pilot study was used to identify guiding variables and relationships for the current</p><p>study. The pilot study used qualitative data-collection methods to investigate the</p><p>level of understanding of students science misconceptions among a group of</p><p>preservice teachers. Twenty-five preservice teachers were interviewed about their</p><p>Table 1 Summary of years ofexperience</p><p>Years of teaching</p><p>experience</p><p>3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade Total</p><p>13 1 3 2 6</p><p>46 1 4 4 9</p><p>79 1 3 1 5</p><p>1012 2 1 0 3</p><p>1315 2 0 2 4</p><p>15+ 1 (28 years) 1 (28 years) 1 (35 years) 3</p><p>Total 8 12 10 30</p><p>Teachers Understanding of Student Misconceptions 439</p><p>123</p></li><li><p>current use and understanding of student misconceptions in science. A semistruc-</p><p>tured interview process was used to address issues, including what a misconception</p><p>is, what role misconceptions play in learning, and how might such misconceptions</p><p>be addressed in instruction, among other questions. The interviews required that the</p><p>students had little prior explicit instruction in constructivism as a philosophical</p><p>orientation toward teaching and learning. Common themes were identified,</p><p>analyzed, and evaluated. The results were used as the basis for the formulation of</p><p>the interview questions for this study (Table 2).</p><p>Interview Protocol</p><p>This exploratory research study was designed to address two research questions:</p><p>1. To what extent do teachers understand what students misconceptions are and</p><p>how science misconceptions develop?</p><p>2. What do teachers know about how to address misconceptions?</p><p>The interviews were used to explore practicing elementary teachers understanding</p><p>about misconceptions, namely, what they are, how they develop, and how</p><p>instruction can address a misconception. The interview questions were designed</p><p>to give an indication of a teachers understanding of misconceptions, origins and</p><p>longevity of misconceptions, and what they as teachers can do about dislodging</p><p>student misconceptions. Thirty interviews were conducted from January to April,</p><p>2005. Teachers were interviewed individually or in small groups of two to four</p><p>teachers. The interviews took place in the teachers classrooms or in a convenient</p><p>location, such as a local coffee shop. All interviews were audiotaped, and the</p><p>teachers responses were transcribed. Interviews lasted from 1 to 1.5 h. Teachers</p><p>were asked each question in order. If they had difficulty developing a definition of a</p><p>misconception or recalling specific examples of misconceptions, the interviewer</p><p>provided additional information, such as examples of typical elementary student</p><p>Table 2 Interview schedule: questions asked of all teachers in the study</p><p>Question</p><p>1. What grade level do you currently teach or plan to teach?</p><p>2. Are there any other grade levels you have experience with?</p><p>3. How long have you been teaching at this grade level?</p><p>4. How many science-related courses have you taken?</p><p>5. What can you tell me about what a misconception is?</p><p>6 How do people/students get science misconceptions? Where do they come from?</p><p>7. In your experience, what are some common science misconceptions your students have had?</p><p>8 As students grow and mature, what happens to their science misconceptions?</p><p>9. How does a students misconception affect the success of your science teaching?</p><p>10. How much do you think about misconceptions while you are planning a science lesson/before you</p><p>teach a science lesson?</p><p>11. What have you done to help a student mediate or correct a science misconception?</p><p>440 S. Gomez-Zwiep</p><p>123</p></li><li><p>misconceptions. For example, a fifth-grade teacher might be informed that students</p><p>often have difficulty identifying gases as a state of matter consistently. If a teacher</p><p>provided a wrong answer as an example of a misconception, I did not correct them.</p><p>If I felt the teachers response was unclear, follow-up questions were used to elicit</p><p>additional responses. For example, if the teacher stated that he or she might use</p><p>hands-on activities to help mediate student misconceptions, I would ask, as a</p><p>follow-up question, if they had a particular example in mind or how they might use</p><p>an activity.</p><p>Data Analysis</p><p>The qualitative analysis of interview transcripts began with initial descriptive codes</p><p>being assigned to teacher responses (Mason 1996). Examples of these initial codes</p><p>include general awareness, student thinking, and instruction. These initial codes</p><p>were then subdivided according to common themes seen in the interview transcripts.</p><p>Common themes used included the definition of misconceptions, the sources of</p><p>misconceptions, the development of misconceptions, and teaching strategies for</p><p>addressing misconceptions. Qualitative data analysis is a cyclical process (Mason</p><p>1996; Strauss and Corbin 1990). Codes were modified, merged, or deleted during</p><p>the iterative coding process. For example, the transcripts were initially coded for</p><p>awareness of misconceptions. However, as more data were coded and recoded, it</p><p>became necessary to bifurcate this initial code to include definitions of</p><p>misconceptions and examples of misconceptions.</p><p>Two additional reviewers were used to ensure the reliability of the interview</p><p>transcript codes. The additional reviewers identified possible codes and trends in the</p><p>interview transcripts. The secondary reviewers individually identified similar trends</p><p>in the coding categories 91% of the time. When differences existed, raters discussed</p><p>evidence from the data and reached consensus on the final rating.</p><p>Findings</p><p>The interviews were given a numeric code to hide the identity of the participant.</p><p>This code contains two numbers. The first number refers to the grade level taught</p><p>and the second number refers to the order in which the interview was conducted. For</p><p>example, a code of 4.2 represents the second fourth-grade teacher interviewed.</p><p>The Nature of Misconceptions</p><p>Teachers Definition of Misconceptions</p><p>The current literature defines a misconception as a belief that contradicts accepted</p><p>scientific theory (Eryilmaz 2002). Out of the 30 teachers interviewed, only 5</p><p>(13.67%) were unfamiliar with the term and were unable to provide any definition</p><p>of a misconception. However, the five teachers were familiar with the experience of</p><p>Teachers Understanding of Student Misconceptions 441</p><p>123</p></li><li><p>their students misinterpreting science concepts. The majority of teachers</p><p>interviewed (83.3%) were able to partially define a misconception. These definitions</p><p>tended to be vague and broad. Although the teachers were aware of misconceptions,</p><p>they had difficulty putting their thoughts about misconceptions into words: [The</p><p>students] perception isnt correct. Their reality doesnt match what is real. It is</p><p>almost prejudging (5.6). Another said, Being unclear in whatever in science that</p><p>can be unclear (4.3). Teachers described misconceptions as a lack of knowledge</p><p>about a science concept. Teachers tied their definition of a misconception to formal</p><p>science instruction, rather than the childs own thoughts or personal experimen-</p><p>tation: A misconception is a misunderstanding about what we are saying to them.</p><p>They think they understand the concept, but they have the wrong understanding of</p><p>it (3.1). Another teacher stated, They dont understand what they are learning, the</p><p>right way; they think it happens the wrong way. They think that science is just</p><p>animals (4.6).</p><p>Several teachers went so far as to suggest that students do not have personal</p><p>ideas about science. These teachers suggested that students do not think about</p><p>science outside of school and that, despite several years of education, they enter</p><p>upper elementary classrooms with virtually no science knowledge of their own:</p><p>Children dont have much of an idea about science in any way. I assume they are</p><p>blank slates, ready to take in whatever I have to give (3.7). Another said, They</p><p>dont really have a lot of knowledge about what science we are teaching them. It is</p><p>like a blank slate (4.4). A third teacher stated, [Stud...</p></li></ul>
View more >
Situating pre‐service reading teachers as tutors: implications of teacher self‐efficacy on tutoring elementary students
Discursive Practice among Teachers Co-Learning during Field-based Elementary Science Teacher Preparation
Prospective chemistry teachers’ misconceptions about ...see- | Chemistry Education Research and Practice Prospective chemistry teachers’ misconceptions about colligative properties: boiling point ...
Understanding elementary school teachers of mathematics school teachers of mathematics are ... This issue of the Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education ... Understanding elementary school teachers of ...
Beginning Teachers' Professional Development and Its Implications for Teacher Education and Training