gomez-zwiep2008.pdf

8/16/2019 gomez-zwiep2008.pdf

1/18

Elementary Teachers’ Understanding of Students’

Science Misconceptions: Implications for Practiceand Teacher Education

Susan Gomez-Zwiep

Published online: 11 June 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2008

Abstract This study sought to determine what elementary teachers know about

student science misconceptions and how teachers address student misconceptions in

instruction. The sample included 30 teachers from California with at least 1-year of

experience teaching grades 3, 4, and 5. A semistructured interview was used. The

interview transcripts were transcribed and coded under the following categories:

definition of misconceptions, sources of misconceptions, development of miscon-

ceptions, and teaching strategies for addressing misconceptions. The results suggestthat, although most of the teachers are aware of misconceptions, they do not

understand how they develop or fully appreciate their impact on their instruction.

Keywords Inservice teacher education Science education Concept formation

Teaching methods Preservice teacher education Misconceptions

Introduction

Misconceptions appear across all areas of science and within all age groups.

Empirical evidence has shown that children have qualitative differences in his or her

understanding of science that is often inconsistent with what the teacher intended

through his or her instruction (Bar 1989; Bar et al. 1994; Pine et al. 2001; Tao and

Gunstone 1999; Trend 2001). Research findings consistently show that misconcep-

tions are deeply rooted, often remaining even after instruction (Eryilmaz 2002).

However, misconceptions are more than misunderstandings about a concept.

Misconceptions are part of a larger knowledge system that involves many

interrelated concepts that students use to make sense of their experiences

S. Gomez-Zwiep (&)

Science Education, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd.,

Long Beach, CA 90840, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

1 3

J Sci Teacher Educ (2008) 19:437–454

DOI 10.1007/s10972-008-9102-y


2/18

(Southerland et al. 2001). Misconceptions are extensions of effective knowledge

that function productively within a specific context. These misconceptions become

apparent when students attempt to use their knowledge beyond the context in which

the knowledge functions effectively (Smith et al. 1993). Thus, since misconceptions

are often integrated with other knowledge, they may include aspects of both expertand novice understandings and may be useful in constructing accurate scientific

understandings.

A gap remains between what research has revealed about misconceptions and

knowledge of how this research is applied in the classroom. There is a significant

body of research on instructional strategies shown to be effective at dealing with

student misconceptions (Ausubel 1968; Guzzetti 2000; Posner et al. 1982). The

research-based strategies have demonstrated some success at addressing miscon-

ceptions by expanding student thinking through dialogue and experimentation.

Although these strategies often involve some form of activity, these activities areselected to specifically confront the misconception by presenting unexpected results

not previously considered by the learner. The teacher is a vital piece in the success

of these strategies, often facilitating student thinking through questioning and

student discourse. What limited research exists regarding teachers and misconcep-

tions has shown that preservice and novice teachers are often unaware that their

students may have misconceptions. In addition, even when teachers are aware of

misconceptions, they are unlikely to use any knowledge of misconceptions in their

instruction (Halim and Meerah 2002). Meyer (2004) also examined expert teachers

and found that they have very complex conceptions of prior knowledge and madesignificant use of their students’ prior knowledge, such as misconceptions, in

instruction. Past research has focused on the extremes of the teaching experience

spectrum, novice to expert (Halim and Meerah 2002; Meyer 2004). However, there

remains a gap regarding the teacher who falls somewhere between an expert and a

novice. Little is known about what the teachers know about this topic—teachers

who have experience teaching elementary school, but do not have any particular

training in the area of misconceptions and natural sciences beyond what they have

experienced in their teacher preparation programs, teacher professional develop-

ment, or both. This study will attempt to identify to what extent teachers across a

range of experience are aware of how misconceptions develop in students and if

these teachers are aware of and use techniques to mediate misconceptions in their

students.

Methods

Terminology

There are several terms in the research used in this area: misconceptions (Bar and

Travis 1991; Eryilmaz 2002; Schmidt 1997; Sneider and Ohadi 1998), naı̈ve views

or conception (Bar 1989; Hesse and Anderson 1992; Pine et al. 2001), preconcep-

tions (Benson et al. 1993), alternative views (Bar and Travis 1991; Gabel Stockton

et al. 2001; Sequeira and Leite 1991; Trend 2001), and alternative conceptions

438 S. Gomez-Zwiep

1 3


3/18

(Hewson and Hewson 2003). Teachers were found to be much more familiar with

the term ‘‘misconception’’ in the pilot study used to craft the interview questions andit is for that reason that this term is used in this study.

Research Participants

The sample consisted of 30 teachers, representing 12 schools in seven different

districts across the state of California. The teachers had experience teaching third,

fourth, and fifth grade students. The level of experience ranged from 1 to 30 years of

teaching (Table 1). The intent of the study was to investigate teachers with

experience teaching elementary school, but teachers who would not be consideredan expert or a novice. Thus, the only requirements for participation were at least

1 year of teaching experience in a K–8 setting and a valid elementary teaching

credential (certified to teach multiple subjects grades K–8). The sample included

teachers from a wide range of school environments covering bilingual and English-

only classrooms, high-performing and low-performing schools, rural and urban

schools, and all levels of socioeconomic neighborhoods. It was assumed that some

level of expertise is necessary for a teacher to understand misconceptions in general.

Therefore, the selection of these teachers was based on recommendations from

principals, colleagues, and professional development consultants who were

contacted via telephone and e-mail. These individuals were requested to recommend

elementary teachers who taught in grades three, four, or five and who did not have

any specialized science training beyond the their credential program. In addition,

teachers were requested who were responsible for teaching science in a general

education setting, rather than a science-specific setting. Once a teacher was

recommended, I (the author of this article) contacted them either by telephone or by

e-mail to arrange a time and place for the interview.

Construction of Interview Questions

A pilot study was used to identify guiding variables and relationships for the current

study. The pilot study used qualitative data-collection methods to investigate the

level of understanding of students’ science misconceptions among a group of

preservice teachers. Twenty-five preservice teachers were interviewed about their

Table 1 Summary of years of

experience Years of teaching

experience

3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade Total

1–3 1 3 2 6

4–6 1 4 4 97–9 1 3 1 5

10–12 2 1 0 3

13–15 2 0 2 4

15+ 1 (28 years) 1 (28 years) 1 (35 years) 3

Total 8 12 10 30

Teachers’ Understanding of Student Misconceptions 439

1 3


4/18

current use and understanding of student misconceptions in science. A semistruc-

tured interview process was used to address issues, including what a misconception

is, what role misconceptions play in learning, and how might such misconceptions

be addressed in instruction, among other questions. The interviews required that the

students had little prior explicit instruction in constructivism as a philosophical

orientation toward teaching and learning. Common themes were identified,analyzed, and evaluated. The results were used as the basis for the formulation of

the interview questions for this study (Table 2).

Interview Protocol

This exploratory research study was designed to address two research questions:

1. To what extent do teachers understand what students’ misconceptions are and

how science misconceptions develop?

2. What do teachers know about how to address misconceptions?

The interviews were used to explore practicing elementary teachers understanding

about misconceptions, namely, what they are, how they develop, and how

instruction can address a misconception. The interview questions were designed

to give an indication of a teacher’s understanding of misconceptions, origins and

longevity of misconceptions, and what they as teachers can do about dislodging

student misconceptions. Thirty interviews were conducted from January to April,

2005. Teachers were interviewed individually or in small groups of two to four

teachers. The interviews took place in the teachers’ classrooms or in a convenient

location, such as a local coffee shop. All interviews were audiotaped, and the

teachers’ responses were transcribed. Interviews lasted from 1 to 1.5 h. Teachers

were asked each question in order. If they had difficulty developing a definition of a

misconception or recalling specific examples of misconceptions, the interviewer

provided additional information, such as examples of typical elementary student

Table 2 Interview schedule: questions asked of all teachers in the study

Question

1. What grade level do you currently teach or plan to teach?

2. Are there any other grade levels you have experience with?

3. How long have you been teaching at this grade level?

4. How many science-related courses have you taken?

5. What can you tell me about what a misconception is?

6 How do people/students get science misconceptions? Where do they come from?

7. In your experience, what are some common science misconceptions your students have had?

8 As students grow and mature, what happens to their science misconceptions?

9. How does a student’s misconception affect the success of your science teaching?

10. How much do you think about misconceptions while you are planning a science lesson/before you

teach a science lesson?11. What have you done to help a student mediate or correct a science misconception?

440 S. Gomez-Zwiep

1 3


5/18

misconceptions. For example, a fifth-grade teacher might be informed that students

often have difficulty identifying gases as a state of matter consistently. If a teacher

provided a wrong answer as an example of a misconception, I did not correct them.

If I felt the teacher’s response was unclear, follow-up questions were used to elicit

additional responses. For example, if the teacher stated that he or she might use

hands-on activities to help mediate student misconceptions, I would ask, as a

follow-up question, if they had a particular example in mind or how they might use

an activity.

Data Analysis

The qualitative analysis of interview transcripts began with initial descriptive codes

being assigned to teacher responses (Mason 1996). Examples of these initial codes

include general awareness, student thinking, and instruction. These initial codes

were then subdivided according to common themes seen in the interview transcripts.

Common themes used included the definition of misconceptions, the sources of

misconceptions, the development of misconceptions, and teaching strategies for

addressing misconceptions. Qualitative data analysis is a cyclical process (Mason

1996; Strauss and Corbin 1990). Codes were modified, merged, or deleted during

the iterative coding process. For example, the transcripts were initially coded for

‘‘awareness of misconceptions.’’ However, as more data were coded and recoded, it

became necessary to bifurcate this initial code to include ‘‘definitions of

misconceptions’’ and ‘‘examples of misconceptions.’’Two additional reviewers were used to ensure the reliability of the interview

transcript codes. The additional reviewers identified possible codes and trends in the

interview transcripts. The secondary reviewers individually identified similar trends

in the coding categories 91% of the time. When differences existed, raters discussed

evidence from the data and reached consensus on the final rating.

Findings

The interviews were given a numeric code to hide the identity of the participant.

This code contains two numbers. The first number refers to the grade level taught

and the second number refers to the order in which the interview was conducted. For

example, a code of 4.2 represents the second fourth-grade teacher interviewed.

The Nature of Misconceptions

Teachers’ Definition of Misconceptions

The current literature defines a misconception as a belief that contradicts accepted

scientific theory (Eryilmaz 2002). Out of the 30 teachers interviewed, only 5

(13.67%) were unfamiliar with the term and were unable to provide any definition

of a misconception. However, the five teachers were familiar with the experience of


1 3


6/18

their students’ misinterpreting science concepts. The majority of teachers

interviewed (83.3%) were able to partially define a misconception. These definitions

tended to be vague and broad. Although the teachers were aware of misconceptions,

they had difficulty putting their thoughts about misconceptions into words: ‘‘[The

students’] perception isn’t correct. Their reality doesn’t match what is real. It isalmost prejudging’’ (5.6). Another said, ‘‘Being unclear in whatever in science that

can be unclear’’ (4.3). Teachers described misconceptions as a lack of knowledge

about a science concept. Teachers tied their definition of a misconception to formal

science instruction, rather than the child’s own thoughts or personal experimen-

tation: ‘‘A misconception is a misunderstanding about what we are saying to them.

They think they understand the concept, but they have the wrong understanding of

it’’ (3.1). Another teacher stated, ‘‘They don’t understand what they are learning, the

right way; they think it happens the wrong way. They think that science is just

animals’’ (4.6).Several teachers went so far as to suggest that students do not have personal

ideas about science. These teachers suggested that students do not think about

science outside of school and that, despite several years of education, they enter

upper elementary classrooms with virtually no science knowledge of their own:

‘‘Children don’t have much of an idea about science in any way. I assume they are

blank slates, ready to take in whatever I have to give’’ (3.7). Another said, ‘‘They

don’t really have a lot of knowledge about what science we are teaching them. It is

like a blank slate’’ (4.4). A third teacher stated, ‘‘[Students] don’t have ideas about

science. You can’t have wrong ideas about science if you don’t have any ideas atall. I am not implying that they are stupid. They just don’t think about science’’

(5.7).

Student misconceptions are deeply rooted into existing knowledge structures and

may resist change to such a degree that the student will alter the intended meaning

of instruction to integrate the new knowledge into the existing schema (Chi et al.

1994; Osborne and Cosgrove 1983; Tsai 2003). However, there was only one

instance of a teacher defining a misconception as something that might impact the

development of further learning in a student. Out of the 30 teachers interviewed,

only one teacher viewed a misconception as something that might inhibit current or

future understanding: ‘‘… a general misunderstanding about the way something

works. A child has a misunderstanding about a concept that inhibits them from full

understanding and from further understanding’’ (3.2). Of the 30 teachers

interviewed, 25 teachers provided only a partial definition of a misconception. Of

those, only 17 teachers were able to provide examples from their experiences with

students. Thus, 43% of the teachers in the sample did not have a complete

understanding of the nature of science misconceptions.

Examples of Student Science Misconceptions Provided by Interviews

Children have their own views about scientific phenomena (Bar 1989; Bar et al.

1994; Pine et al. 2001). Student misconceptions have been found in individuals at

all ages and in all scientific domains. In fact, these views have been shown to be

442 S. Gomez-Zwiep

1 3


7/18

fairly predictable at specific age spans. One third of all teachers interviewed were

unable to produce even one example of a student misconception from their own

experiences, even after examples were provided. Teachers provided statements that

reflected student attitudes toward science, rather than specific science content that

students’ might have misconceptions about:

They think all science classes make volcanoes. (5.6)

I think students are afraid [of science] because the first thing most teachers do

is put up vocabulary words. Many of these words the students cannot even

pronounce. There a mental block is put up immediately—before a teacher has

even given the lesson. (4.1)

However, 57% of teachers interviewed were able to provide several examples of

misconceptions commonly found in their students. These examples tended to be

very specific and directly linked to the science content they teach: ‘‘The moon

actually physically changes shape over time. It is malleable’’ (3.3); ‘‘Everything that

was living before now, like dinosaurs, was living at the same time’’ (3.4); and

‘‘Evaporation means that water becomes air’’ (3.6).

Research has shown that, if the students’ cognitive abilities are not mature

enough to understand the concept, the student will be unable to develop a correct

understanding of it, regardless of instruction (Stavy and Stachel 1985; Trowbridge

and Mintzes 1988). The teachers in the sample responded to curricular issues and

discussed the developmental levels of the grade. These types of examples provided

by teachers centered on concepts the teachers felt were beyond the developmentallevel of that grade. These were usually abstract concepts, and the teachers

commented on the difficulty for young students to comprehend what they cannot see

and touch.

[Students] don’t understand where things originate from. Things just pop out

of nowhere, and that’s how they are. I asked them where hamburger comes

from, and half of them didn’t know it came from a cow. (5.2)

They have trouble with the idea that things take a long time. They think they

can see glaciers move. You can see landslides on the news. They have a reallyhard time understanding how water or wind can cause changes in a landform.

If there is a little hole in a rock, a big gust of wind came through and blew it

out—and then you have a sea arch. (4.8)

…things they can’t touch. Basically, if they can’t literally see it, they have a

really hard time getting it. Take electricity, they understand what it is, but they

don’t understand where it comes from. It is too abstract. (4.10)

The teachers expressed concern over the developmental level of their students and

the content they were required to teach at that grade level. The examples providedby the teachers were specific to the science standards assigned to the specific grade

level they taught. For example, fifth-grade teachers often discussed student

misconceptions that dealt with the states of matter while fourth-grade teachers

focused on earth processes, such as erosion.


1 3


8/18

Origins of Misconceptions

Research has shown that misconceptions can develop both from external and

internal sources (Bar 1989; Bar and Travis 1991; Nussbaum 1979; Ross and Shuell

1993; Stavy and Satchel 1985). Teachers overwhelmingly attributed studentmisconceptions to faulty or erroneous information that the child acquires from

external sources, the most common being parents and television (specifically,

cartoons). Other external sources of misconceptions included peers, computer

games, the Internet, and reading books.

[Students] get misconceptions from a combination of what they hear from

their relatives and the people around them and what they read in magazines

and newspapers. A lot of them get their ideas from what they see on television.

They see a talking head explaining things from the abstract. (5.7)

Sometimes parents have a limited formal education. In fact, by fifth grade,

many of my students have surpassed the formal education of their parents. (5.8)

Some of them are very Catholic, and there is a lot of legend mixed in with

their Catholicism. (5.8)

They watch a lot of TV. The cartoons show a lot of mad scientists and labs,

and I think that is as far as they can go. (4.8)

Many teachers saw school as a place where misconceptions are corrected as

students receive more information. However, teachers were also mentioned as ameans of contributing to misconceptions through poor instruction or a lack of

teacher content knowledge.

Students get misconceptions from the school setting in addition to teacher

instruction. Textbook pictures can be confusing. They show the Earth that

travels around the sun as an oval instead of a circle. (3.2)

They can get misconceptions from school by not providing background

knowledge when we try to teach science concepts that are too advanced for their

age. It assumes that all students enter class at the same level. They don’t. (4.9)

It is also from bad science instruction from teachers. Science is not

particularly important to many teachers. It is not something you do naturally.

I am teaching them what I learned in school, which is an abstraction. So I give

them an abstraction—that they abstract—that gets even more warped. So

teachers disseminate misconceptions they have to their students. (5.7)

The teachers discussed misconceptions as something ‘‘done’’ to students via

incorrect information from the adults around them. When teachers discussed their

students’ own internal thinking processes, it was linked to knowledge gaps about aconcept.

Misconceptions depend on the actual teacher. If they are not being taught

science regularly, they miss out. They are not doing all the experiments that

they should at every grade level. If the prior knowledge is not there, they don’t

444 S. Gomez-Zwiep

1 3


9/18

understand what they are doing at that moment. If there are gaps in their

knowledge, they are missing the stepping stones they need. (5.5)

They come from a lack of exposure to science. My students really haven’t had

a lot of science taught to them. They really have no understanding of it. I am

finding they have little if any exposure (to science). (5.11)

They come from a lack of knowledge. I think if (science) is not being taught,

or not being taught correctly, there will be a big gap. And, if they miss those

building blocks, they will have misconceptions. (4.5)

There were three teachers in the sample who saw misconceptions originating

from the student’s own mental constructs. These teachers talked about these

misconceptions, not as a lack of understanding, but as an understanding that is

different than the scientifically accepted one.

They are fitting pieces of the puzzle together, but not realizing that they really

don’t fit. For example, a misconception might be that, every time it rains, there

is a rainbow, based on their experiences. (4.6)

The children have formed their own ideas about science based on what they have

experienced—without any guidance, just how they are making sense of the

scientific world. I think they have their own deductive reasoning, and they use

what they know and apply it to what is going on. If there are holes, they try to fill it

in to make sense. Of course it is incorrect, but it makes them feel satisfied. (3.6)

In general, most teachers (57%) are aware that students will have misconceptions

about science concepts. In fact, teachers, by and large, were able to recall several

examples of common misconceptions they had seen in their own students. Teachers

suggested that misconceptions originate from three sources. First, misconceptions

develop from stories passed on to students from their parents, friends, or television

and movies. Second, misconceptions are poor explanations, rather than ones that

contradict accepted scientific theory. Third, misconceptions develop when the

concept is beyond the developmental level of the student. However, only three of

the teachers in the sample (10%) discussed how students’ own thinking and mental

constructs contribute to student misconceptions. The majority of the teachers

described misconceptions as something that results from external sources, rather

than originating in the student’s own thinking.

Misconceptions and Instruction

Planning Instruction

During the first part of the interview, 43% of teachers interviewed were unable to

remember even one example of a misconception their students had expressed. It is

not surprising that these teachers would later affirm that they do not think about

possible misconceptions during planning or while teaching. However, several

teachers interviewed were able to recall seeing several student misconceptions

within the content they teach. This might suggest that these teachers would predict


1 3


10/18

that future students would also have similar misconceptions, and this might lead

them to consider misconceptions prior to teaching a lesson. Of the 30 teachers

interviewed, 19 stated that they have not considered student misconceptions while

planning science lessons.

I can honestly say that I don’t think about this [misconceptions] while planning.

I do think about ELL [English language learners] strategies. But, just today, I

was walking around looking at what my students wrote about our activity, and I

saw that there were some misconceptions in what the kids wrote. (3.6)

I don’t think I thought about them. I thought if I were going to teach it, they

would get it. So, they won’t have misconceptions. (3.3)

I don’t think about (misconceptions) at all. It just isn’t practical. (5.7)

Of the teachers who stated that they consider misconceptions prior to instruction,all but two described some means of tapping into prior knowledge, such as a K-W-L

chart or other graphic organizer of prior knowledge (Ausubel 1968; Novak 2002).

These teachers used the information gathered from their students to make decisions

about where to begin the instruction or whether or not to review information they

had assumed the students already knew

I try to get at prior knowledge first. I can’t teach something if they don’t have

the prior knowledge that is needed. (4.9)

I try to tap into their prior knowledge and share that information, becauseother students might have different responses. (5.3)

I don’t know that I consider misconceptions. I ask them what they know, like

with a quick write, and then plan from there. I’ll put some vocabulary on the

board and ask them to tell me what they know about them. (5.9)

Of the entire sample of teachers interviewed, only two individuals discussed

instructional strategies beyond identifying prior knowledge or ignoring misconcep-

tions all together. One teacher, who had 5 years’ teaching experience, said she

thinks about what her own misconceptions were at that age to help her predict what

misconceptions her students may have. However, although this knowledge factored

into the initial planning of the lesson, it did not impact instruction once the unit had

begun. Another teacher, who had only 2 years’ experience, said she thinks of the

student responses she expects during the lesson as a way to gauge student

understanding during the lesson. In this case, if the expected student responses were

not achieved during the lesson, it was an indication to the teacher that the students

had not interpreted the lesson as she had intended, and she would go back and

reteach some information. This was true of only one teacher in the entire sample.

Instructional Techniques to Address Student Misconceptions

Various methods have been shown to be successful in addressing misconceptions

(Eryilmaz 2002; Guzzetti 2000; Tsai 2003). Regardless of the strategy, most methods

include initiating some type of cognitive conflict within the learner between his or

446 S. Gomez-Zwiep

1 3


11/18

her expectations based on a misconception and the actual observations presented.

When discussing what instructional strategies might be used to help students address

their misconceptions, teachers were generally optimistic about their ability to

mediate a misconception. There was a great variety in the strategies offered by the

teachers, including the use of videos, books, field trips, and eliciting prior knowledge.Experimentation was the most frequently mentioned method of moving students

toward a more scientific understanding of a concept. Twenty of the 30 teachers

interviewed mentioned some form of investigation or experimentation as a necessary

part of dislodging a misconception.

I would use hands-on experiments. It took longer to get through the stuff, but

the kids understood it better. (4.3)

I don’t know that misconceptions affect the success of a lesson. I think you have

to add at lot of hands on so they can see what their misconceptions are. (5.8)

We do experiments, inquiry-based learning. They might believe something;

then you do an experiment, and they alter their belief. After numerous

experiences, we build them to that understanding. They need to see it; they

need to experience it…getting their hands wet. (3.6)

One third of the teachers also discussed questioning techniques as a means of

correcting student misconceptions. Questioning was discussed as a way to help

students work out what they personally thought of the scientific view of the concept.

Questioning ranged from simple guiding questions from the teacher to the student toeliciting extensive explanations from the student about an experiment.

I would use questioning techniques. ‘‘So what do you think it looks like?’’

Have them prove it—prove to me that it isn’t what they thought. Show me

evidence. (3.3)

Let them go ahead with their misconceptions, prove themselves right or

wrong, and then discuss it with themselves. If it doesn’t come out, then I will

just get up and tell them. But it is better that they teach each other, rather than

hearing it from me. (3.7)

As you proceed, you ask questions that will force them to notice that what they

thought would happen doesn’t. (5.8)

One teacher offered this response to dealing with misconceptions:

I would ask [students] to try and justify their belief. That way they can see that

their belief is incorrect. I know when you learn something it is really hard to

unlearn it—so maybe, if they could find it on their own, with my guidance,

with lots of questioning. (5.1)

When she was asked how long she thought this would take, she replied, ‘‘I don’t

think it will take that long. Two lessons and they will finally figure out that this is

wrong or this is more believable’’ (5.1).

Eight of the teachers (26%) interviewed felt confident that students simply

needed clarification about their ideas. These teachers all stated that the method they


1 3


12/18

use for addressing student misconceptions was to tell them what the real explanation

is. These teachers also spoke of the ‘‘open mindedness’’ of young children, possibly

mistaking the wish to please the teacher with genuine comprehension.

Sometimes I will explain it to them and reexplain it to them, giving moreexamples or visuals—or sometimes I just tell them. (5.6)

I don’t think their misconceptions have that much to do with my lessons. My

kids are so open minded that if you tell them, then they say, ‘‘OK, I now agree

with you.’’ They are so open minded to change. (4.10)

It is convincing them what it is all about, that they can do it. They will be more

willing to accept what I tell them. (5.11)

There were some teachers who felt that no level of instruction could mediate a

misconception.

It depends of the curiosity of the student. It depends on the background of the

student. If the student is shuffling through the day from 8 to 3, I don’t think

there is any desire on the part of the student to dislodge the misconception. You

are talking about a sophisticated intellectual question that has no application to

the student. They are just trying to get through the day. (5.7)

This statement was the only response that seemed to realistically address the

resistant nature of misconceptions. Misconceptions have been proven to be highly

resistant to change, especially if the student does not see the relevance for adaptinghis or her personal explanation (Posner et al. 1982; Tao and Gunstone 1999).

Impact of Instruction on Students’ Misconceptions

The teachers were asked about how misconceptions develop in students as they

grow and mature. This question was designed to gauge how teachers viewed

misconceptions: Are they fixed understandings or do they adjust as the student’s

cognitive abilities develop? We know from the literature that some misconceptions

do correct themselves as individuals develop more complex cognitive abilities. In

fact, if the student’s cognitive ability is not mature enough to understand the

concept, a clear and rational explanation will not produce a conceptual

understanding in the student (Stavy and Satchel 1985; Trowbridge and Mintzes

1988). However, this may not be obvious to an elementary teacher who only sees

students of one age, day after day, year after year.

Generally, teachers stated that misconceptions would stay with an individual if it

was not addressed by further instruction, either in school or motivated by the

students’ self-interest. This was linked to their comments concerning gaps in

knowledge and how they contribute to student misconceptions. Many teachers

showed concern that, if students did not receive adequate science instruction in the

future, their misconceptions would solidify.

As students get older, their misconceptions become calcified. There are

misconceptions piled on top of misconceptions. (5.7)

448 S. Gomez-Zwiep

1 3


13/18


14/18

Meerah 2002). In addition, research has also shown that preservice teachers only

consider students’ prior conceptions to identify where there are gaps in their prior

knowledge and then add new knowledge to it (Meyer 2004). This study confirms

and broadens these findings for teachers across a wide range of teaching experience.

Although the teachers in the sample were generally aware of student misconcep-tions, the teachers’ responses indicate that they do not consider misconceptions

beyond using prior knowledge as a means of determining the starting point of their

lesson.

The findings from this study suggest that teachers are generally aware of

misconceptions, although not every teacher was able to provide a definition of a

misconception. While they may be familiar with the term, a large percentage (43%)

of teachers did not completely understand misconceptions or could not describe

examples from their teaching experience. Misconceptions were seen as something

that develops from TV and other media, peers, and family, in addition to inside theclassroom, often from poor instruction. It has been well documented that students

have well-defined views of the world, based on their encounters with the natural

world before ever entering formal education (Bar and Travis 1991; Eryilmaz 2002).

However, the teachers interviewed also underappreciated the learning gained from

personal experiences. In fact, during the interviews, several teachers stated that they

didn’t think students thought about science outside of formal instruction.

The teachers interviewed had a limited understanding of the term ‘‘misconcep-

tion.’’ Misconceptions were often described as gaps in knowledge that need to be

filled. Their flawed understanding of the term and the connection that some teachersmade between a misconception and a misunderstanding may lead them to

underestimate how deeply rooted a misconception can be in student thinking. The

children are not simply lacking information about a science concept; they have

developed their own explanation for it. Although the majority of teachers gave an

appropriate example of a misconception, they referred to a misconception as student

confusion that simply needed more information to dispel that confusion. In addition,

teachers described misconceptions as something that develops arbitrarily, based on

whatever incorrect information is received from family, peers, or the media.

Thus, although teachers are generally aware of misconceptions, their view of

misconceptions as gaps or confusion may lead teachers to ignore misconceptions

once instruction begins. Teachers primarily stated that they address misconceptions

using strategies to identify prior knowledge. Teachers discussed using some type of

graphic organizer, such as a ‘‘what I know, what I want to know, what I learned’’

(K-W-L) chart, similar to the type of advance organizers suggested by Ausubel

(1968) and Novak (2002). For the teachers in this study, assessing student

knowledge is done at the beginning of a lesson to identify gaps in this knowledge so

these gaps can be filled prior to the next lesson. Teachers tended to describe

knowledge building as a linear process. The students would begin with what

knowledge they had, and, through instruction, additional knowledge would be built

upon it. The teachers did not consider the possibility that misconceptions are tied to

broader understandings and knowledge in students. Thus, the teachers did not

consider students’ misconceptions as something that would require instruction to be

altered once the gaps in knowledge were addressed. Hence, considering

450 S. Gomez-Zwiep

1 3


15/18

misconceptions during planning seemed to mean acknowledging student thinking at

the beginning of the lesson only.

The majority of the teachers assumed that their general instructional strategies

would be sufficient to mediate misconceptions. The teachers did not have particular

strategies specifically designed for misconceptions. This may be due again to theirview that misconceptions develop from poor instruction or a lack of instruction. Halim

and Meerah (2002) found that preservice teachers often restated their own

understanding of a concept, rather than use their knowledge of teaching when

explaining a problem to students. Several teachers in this sample also felt the best

method for addressing misconceptions is to tell the student why their own idea is

wrong. Another set of teachers felt that, if students complete an experiment, the

misconception will be obvious to the students and the misconception will be mediated.

Both groups were confident that all students need is a lesson with correct information.

Many of the teachers interviewed believed that students need to experiment tobuild their own understanding of the concept. However, they seemed to assume that

there is only one way to interpret these experiences and the intended result will be

obvious to the students. Few teachers were able to elaborate on the role of

experiments in dislodging misconceptions. With only one exception, the teachers

interviewed felt that providing the hands-on experiments alone would be sufficient

for students to correct their misconception. The teachers were unaware that students

may interpret information from an experiment differently than intended; the

knowledge that is obvious to the teacher may not be to a student. Windschitl ( 2002)

found that teachers use activities for the sake of the activity, overestimating thestudents’ ability to construct meaning from the activity. This study found similar

results. Although the teachers advocated constructivist strategies that allow students

to make sense of their misconceptions, such as hands-on activities and experiments,

they would later fall back on the traditional teaching view that, if you tell a student a

concept, they will internalize and comprehend it. This presents a clear disconnect

from the recommendations of National Science Education Standards for hands-on,

minds-on activities (National Research Council 1996). Teachers need to provide

experiences where students are not just handling materials, but are formulating

questions about their observations, discussing their observations with their teacher

and their peers, planning further investigations, and being assessed in ways that are

consistent with this type of active approach to learning. Hands-on activities are not

enough for students to have meaningful learning experiences.

Posner et al. (1982) suggested a conceptual change process that has been used as

a standard model on which other strategies are based. The conceptual change

process involves not only making the individual aware of his or her misconception,

but also involves causing the individual to become dissatisfied with his or her

previous notion through experiences and teacher guidance specifically designed to

cause conflict between the misconception and their observations. However, the

teachers interviewed did not consider the connection between the identification of

the specific misconception and the activities used to address them. The selection of

specific activities that would confront misconceptions, such as a discrepant event,

was never mentioned. Including the students in the discussion of their own


1 3


16/18

misconceptions was also not considered necessary. Although the teachers discussed

hands-on activities, they were never specifically designed to target a misconception.

The findings discussed here suggest that, although there is a tremendous amount

of literature regarding student misconceptions, it has not filtered down to the

everyday world of the classroom. This evidence from this study indicates that, whileaware that misconceptions exist, teachers are not attentive to their impact on

instruction. Seeing that misconceptions have been shown to be prevalent and

predictable and can interfere with the processing of new information, teachers need

to be aware of the instructional implications and the strategies designed to address

misconceptions. Exposing teachers to student misconceptions in their teacher

preparation course through example and definition is not enough to ensure that they

will be adequately prepared to address them in their own class. In addition, the

teachers included in this sample covered a range of teaching experience from 1 to

30 years; this suggests that the ability to address misconceptions does notnecessarily develop with experience.

The results of this study have implications beyond the issue of science

misconceptions. There is the larger issue of if and how teachers consider student

thinking in their instruction in general. The findings from this study suggest that,

although teachers may endorse the use of hands-on activities, they may not consider

how students will interpret their experiences or if the experiences will add up to

their instructional expectations. The teachers interviewed also did not discuss

altering instruction in response to how their students performed. Although many

teachers discussed the misconceptions they see in students year after year, they didnot consider checking for student understanding regarding these misconceptions

once their lesson had begun. Consequently, teachers may simply move ahead in

their instruction without reflecting on what evidence they have about what their

students know to adapt the next lesson or lessons for future use.

Quality science instruction is more that developing the lessons and experiments.

Teachers need to constantly assess their students’ understanding of the content

before, during and after these lessons to make instructional decisions that will best

meet the needs of their students. This is true of all science content, but it is

especially vital for concepts that students may have misconceptions about.

Understanding how to elicit student feedback and adapt during instruction, based

on this feedback, should be a primary goal of any teacher preparation program.

However, this ability also develops with experience. Therefore it is also a topic

relevant to teacher professional development.

Suggestions for Future Research

This research sheds light on what the typical elementary teacher knows about the

nature of misconceptions and how they address them in their instruction. While

many studies have identified student misconceptions and evaluated instructional

strategies, few have provided any insight into the teacher who is faced with them in

the classroom. As this study was primarily explorative in nature, there remain

numerous questions that need to be addressed. Additional research is needed

452 S. Gomez-Zwiep

1 3


17/18

regarding teachers who teach science as a content specialist. Content specialists in

elementary school often teach the same lesson multiple times in one day, while an

elementary teacher may have to wait an entire year before presenting the same lesson

again. Does the opportunity to teach a lesson several times within a short window of

time make for a teacher more adept at addressing misconceptions? Similar to anelementary science specialist, high school and middle school teachers will also teach

science to multiple classes in a single day. However, a high school science teacher

will often have stronger content background than an elementary teacher and may

have a different perspective on student misconceptions. The sample used for this

study was comprised entirely of elementary teachers—who rarely hold a degree in

science. More research is needed on how content knowledge factors into a teacher’s

ability to address misconceptions in the classroom. This study also leads to questions

regarding the way teachers are planning their instruction in general. Teachers with

limited expertise in planning science lessons may be limited in their ability toaddress misconceptions in their instruction. Similarly, teachers with limited

expertise in assessment may also be limited in their ability to measure the

effectiveness of their instruction in developing student understanding.

The most glaring gap in the research is what techniques are most effective at

improving a teachers’ ability to address student misconceptions. This issue has not

been investigated sufficiently in the areas of teacher preparation or professional

development. The results of the study and of previous research (Halim and Meerah

2002; Meyer 2004) suggest that teachers are not prepared to confront science

misconceptions when they arise in their classrooms, even if the teachers recognizethat such misconceptions exist. So how do we move teachers toward this

understanding? Is it necessary to discuss misconceptions in preservice education?

Does this issue need to be addressed as part of professional development? Does

awareness develop only when both preservice and professional development are

included? Further research is necessary to understand what methods can improve a

teacher’s ability to deal with student misconceptions.

Finally, the results reported here suggest that teachers may not consider how

students are interpreting and integrating new content to guide their instruction.

Rather, teachers look for gaps in the prerequisite knowledge and go forward, rarely

looking back for reasons beyond the final assessment. Further data is needed on how

teachers are monitoring how their students are interpreting their science activities

and how this relates to their students’ misconceptions.

References

Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Bar, V. (1989). Children’s views about the water cycle. Science Education, 73, 481–500.

Bar, V., & Travis, A. S. (1991). Children’s views concerning phase changes. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 28, 363–382.

Bar, V., Zinn, B., Goldmuntz, R., & Sneider, C. (1994). Children’s concepts about weight and free fall.

Science Education, 78, 149–169.

Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., & Baur, M. E. (1993). Students’ preconceptions of the nature of gases.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 587–597.


1 3


18/18

Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to process: A theory of conceptual

change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.

Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students’

misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 39, 1001–1015.

Gabel, D. L., Stockton, J. D., Monaghan, D. L., & MaKinster, J. G. (2001). Changing children’sconceptions of burning. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 439–451.

Guzzetti, B. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a

decade of research? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16 , 89–98.

Halim, L., & Meerah, S. M. (2002). Science trainee teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and its

influence on physics teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20, 215–225.

Hesse, J., & Anderson, C. (1992). Students’ conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 29, 277–299.

Hewson, M., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual

change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, S86–S98.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.

Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers’ conceptions of learners’ prior knowledge. Science

Education, 88, 970–983.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or

inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86 ,

584–571.

Nussbaum, J. (1979). Children’s conceptions of the earth as a cosmic body: A cross age study. Science

Education, 63, 83–93.

Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s conception of the changes in the state of water.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 825–838.

Pine, K., Messer, D., & St. John, K. (2001). Children’s misconceptions in primary science: A survey of

teachers’ views. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19, 79–96.Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific

conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66 , 211–277.

Ross, K. E., & Shuell, T. J. (1993). Children’s beliefs about earthquakes. Science Education, 77 , 191–205.

Schmidt, H. (1997). Students’ misconceptions: Looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81, 123–135.

Sequeira, M., & Leite, L. (1991). Alternative conceptions and history of science in physics teacher

education. Science Education, 75, 45–56.

Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of

knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115–163.

Sneider, C., & Ohadi, M. (1998). Unraveling students’ misconceptions about the Earth’s shape and

gravity. Science Education, 82, 265–284.

Southerland, S., Abrams, E., Cummins, C., & Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding students’ explanations

of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Science Education, 85, 328–348.Stavy, R., & Stachel, D. (1985). Children’s conceptions of change in the state of matter: From ‘‘solid’’

and ‘‘liquid’’. Archives de Psychologie, 53, 331–344.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tao, P., & Gunstone, R. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-

supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 , 859–882.

Trend, R. D. (2001). Deep time framework: A preliminary study. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 38, 191–221.

Trowbridge, J. E., & Mintzes, J. J. (1988). Alternative conceptions in animal classification: A cross age

study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 547–571.

Tsai, C. (2003). Using a conflict map and an instructional tool to change student alternative conceptionsin simple series electric-circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 307–327.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of

the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of

Educational Research, 72, 131–175.

454 S. Gomez-Zwiep

1 3

gomez-zwiep2008.pdf

Documents