Student Misconceptions in Secondary Science - Dissertation Example

?Connecting Research to Practice: How well do science teachers use research recommendations to deal with misconceptions in Science? Mohammed Tayyab, Bsc secondary science QTS ABSTRACT This paper evaluates whether teachers are putting into practise the various research recommendations in dealing with student misconceptions in sciences. This topic is significant as it connects research to practice. The paper interviews 9 science teachers from three different high schools, and observes two of them in class while introducing a new concept. The research found that there exists a considerable alignment between research and practice with quite a considerable number of teachers employing researched recommendations to deal with student misconceptions. This is despite the fact that in comparison not many teachers have extensive knowledge of research report recommendations. Introduction When teachers instruct students on various concepts from a wide array of subjects, they often encounter students who already have their own preconceived ideas about the theories and concepts on how things work. This is more so in science subjects where children get to understand various aspects of science in their own ways before they are taught on such concepts. For instance some science students before being taught about the galaxy may think that the earth is the biggest planet there is and exists on its own, or they may think that the moon has its own light, or that it is the sun that moves around the earth rather the earth since they can see the sun move and not feel the earth tilt. Indeed research shows that when students come to class to learn they often have their own prior rich knowledge on how science works based on their own experiences, peer interactions, and also based on some science knowledge they have attained or the based on erroneous concepts taught by previous instructors (Yip, 1999:207; Bulunuz, Jarrett, & Bulunuz, 2008:32-33). Such prior knowledge or preconceptions may impact positive or negatively the learning process of a student. Guzzetti (2000:89) in her research report supports this impact by noting that that prior conceptions has on learning experiences by noting that students who hold prior views concerning a given concept do not easily give up these notions. This implies that breaking down misconceptions held by students so as to build correct is noted as one the toughest parts in teaching students of all ages. A mass body of knowledge in research has been dedicated in studying various science misconceptions held by students and recommendations passed forward on how teachers can deal with such misconceptions in order to ensure effective knowledge transfer to the students (Bulunuz, Jarrett, & Bulunuz, 2008; Guzzetti, 2000; Yip, 1998). No known study to the author though has so far reviewed and analysed how the use of such recommendations have been in class, or the degree to which such recommendations put down in research are adopted by secondary school teachers in dealing with misconceptions in science subjects. This research report seeks to cover this gap in knowledge and investigate by how far research meets practise by seeking to answer the research question: how well do science teachers use research recommendations to deal with student misconceptions in science? Literature Review Student Science Misconceptions Guest (2003:2) defines student misconceptions as student’s viewpoints that are different from the conventionally known science knowledge where such beliefs are as a result of previous experience. Others such as Bulnuz, Jarret and Bulunuz (2008:32) and Thompson and Logue (2006:553) view student misconceptions as ideas that provide a crooked and incorrect way to understand about scientific concepts and which may be as a result of personal experiences, everyday language, media or even incorrect instructional material or incorrect ideas from some instructors. These misconceptions are often deep-rooted and tend to be difficult to change (Thompson and Logue, 2006; Guest, 2003: Chi, 2005). Many studies have investigated common student misconceptions. While some provided lists and how to deal with such misconceptions, others have dealt in specific science misconceptions in a bid to develop effective frameworks that deal with such misconceptions. Thompson and Logue (2006) noted that among three conceptions: that is lighter things float and heavier one sink; cloud contains water; and animals are land mammals excluding fish insects and birds, it was concluded that the degree of misconceptions for different concepts varied with age. Older high school students tended to have lesser misconceptions on these than the younger elementary students in the study. These results have been supported by Kubiatko and Prokop (2007:11-12) where they noted that most students synonymously associated mammals to animals. Other student science misconception include the notion that seasons change due to the earth either being closer to the sun or moving away from the sun (Bransford, n.d.); the moon has its own light, or that it is the sun that moves around the earth rather the earth since they can see the sun move and not feel the earth tilt (Black, 2006:48-49); misconception that plants are not alive (Abdi, 2006); misconception that lungs are not involved in blood circulation (Yip, 1998; Bransford, n.d.); and misconceptions that colour change in acids are not caused by phenolphthalein or the sources of carbon dioxide in the combination of chemicals (Misbah & Zafar, 2009:69-71). These among many are some of the misconceptions about science that scholars have looked at. Teachers’ awareness of misconceptions With all these research done on student misconceptions, one wonders the level of awareness by teachers of the existence of such misconceptions and how to overcome such misconceptions. Pine, Messer and John (2011) in their study collected data from teachers concerning their awareness of common student misconceptions in science. In this study the teachers were able to identify common misconceptions supported elsewhere in literature and noted that for more difficult concepts, the number of student misconceptions were even higher. This view is supported by Guzzetti (2000) who note that the high level of research knowledge of science misconceptions has increased knowledge for practice, with notable key lesson learnt including the need for teachers to develop teacher guided and learner centred learning. Other researchers though have found that teachers too influence student misconceptions as some may have their own misconceived constructs. Notably, Yip (1998:208-210) in their research study evaluated the level of knowledge in teachers concerning concepts such as blood vessel diameter, blood pressure, and blood flow in the circulatory system. The research found that most teachers were unable to fully different between three concepts thereby noting that teachers play a key role in students misconceptions as they have their own as well. This conclusion is supported by Kikas (2002:438-443) and Atwood and Atwood (1997:5-7) where it was noted that teachers had some misconception on certain concepts in science with no significant difference on the level of experience for the teachers. Research conclusions on how to deal with science misconceptions With the wide array of student misconceptions evaluated, studies have also analysed and recommended various ways in which such misconceptions can be dealt with in order to eliminate the misconceptions. Abdi (2006) posits that student misconceptions need be “confronted through hands-on and minds-on activities” (39). In this sense teachers need to develop an inquiry environment to determine students’ misconceptions and thoughts through asking inquiry questions, and letting the students engage in discussion for self clarification of their views. Through this a teachers needs to set an environment that will put in doubt their misconceptions, and ensure that the new knowledge is applicable clearly explained, and conduct through discussions to answer unanswered questions (Abdi, 2006:39). This view is supported by Chiu and Lin (2004: 430, 460) research which notes that for effective learning, teaching starts from what is known by the students towards what is unknown through the use of analogies. Chi (2005:193) supports the use of analogies by positing that some misconceptions tend to be robust, and can be eliminated through building and ontological shifting processes. These imply that it is important to understand the mental modes of the students with the conceptions, then making students aware that they need to shift their ideas and further help them construct a new idea through first building a schema. Guest (2003:6-7) on the other hand recommends helping students first acquire the new vocabularies and correct language for use in science is key to eliminating misconceptions. This is done through social interaction of the students. Afterwards a translation and interpretation are given to the work. The kind of learning environment in science classes is also imperative for shifting misconceptions to newer ideas. Vosniadou et al (2001) and Guzzetti (2000) posit that experimental learning environment where students are encourage to test and justify their misconceptions, take active control of their learning process, and debate among themselves concerning such misconceptions and their results in experiments is key to ensuring cognitive gains. In contract to teaching strategies, other research have focused on secondary science text books, and noted that well elaborative, easy to understand text books are key to helping students eliminate some of the misconceptions as they conduct their own private learning and investigations (Olson, 2004:27; Hubisz, 2003). With such recommendations identified in studies, there is need to study and understand how such recommendations are employed in practise Research Sample and Methods The participants of the research study were 9 science teachers from three different secondary schools of which 6 were male teachers and 3 female teachers. The teachers were three from each of the secondary schools, where one school was from the upside of town, the other from the down side of town, and one from middle class neighbourhood in order to be representative of all schools. Though there was no balancing in the gender, the study expected that all teachers irrespective of gender would tend to adopt learning strategies recommended in research and literature. Data was collected through interviewing the teachers one at a time from the various schools, with two of the teachers allowing observation in in-class learning and interactions. Key interview questions focused on the teachers’ knowledge of common misconceptions, whether the teachers were aware of research recommendations on how to deal with student science misconceptions and how the teachers usually overcome student misconceptions as they teach. Notable ethical consideration entails the ethicality of observing a class in session and how students interact during learning. Biases may also exist since teachers may probably tend to provide information that casts them in the positive light. Results Since the data gathered was mainly quantitative data, it was analysed quantitatively with key major points and themes from the interview noted. From the interviews held by the teachers a number of observations were noted. In reviewing teachers’ knowledge on student misconceptions from the first interview question, notable responses were: “...i’m aware that students often come to class with their own notions of what is and what is not. In my biology class, some students’ classified mushrooms as plants, yet it was fungi, while some noted moulds as non plant items ...” (Interviewee). Another teacher noted that: “... everybody have their own views on what science entails from various experiences ... some students misconceive motion of objects as force applied to them ...” (Interviewee). Reviewing whether the teachers were aware of research studies done on student misconceptions on science, and their recommendations, and whether they were employing these recommendations, some of the responses acquired included: “...aye, i have seen some of those studies in teachers conventions though i have not read one. I have though looked simplified brochures with steps on how to remove student misconception. These are easier to understand... i have put some in practice...” (Interviewee) “...there are lots of studies and most of these often recommend the same solutions over and over ...experiment in learning and student participation ...i have incorporated these in my teaching ...” (Interviewee) “... no I don’t read such ... i learn from experience with my students ... deal with students distorted views through in-depth discussions on such views in order to show how wrong they are.” (Interviewee) The strategies that the teachers used in overcoming students misconceptions as notable from interview results are as shown below: “...ask students to prove their viewpoints ... students do further research on the concept to dispel such notions ...” (Interviewee). “...ask students questions to understand their viewpoints ... follow it with group discussion among students... inform students of wrong notions ... require full researched topic on concept with the most distorted notions...” (interviewee). “... experiments ...” (interviewee). “...develop interactive learning sessions, and outside the classroom visits to study nature...” (Interviewee). From the in-class observations, teachers mostly sought students’ views and engaged in discussions on various preconceived notions, with the teachers asking students for research further the topic. The table below summarises focus areas: Key focus area Little knowledge and practise Average Knowledge and practise Extensive knowledge and Practise Knowledge on student misconceptions 11.11% 55.56% 33.33% Knowledge on Research recommendations and application of these 33.33% 44.44% 22.22% Strategies used to overcome student misconceptions 11.11% 55.56% 33.33% Discussion From the results obtained above, several deductions can be obtained. Student Science misconceptions and teacher awareness of these misconceptions From the research study it was noted that a big number had average to excellent knowledge that students held prior misconceptions in science classes. This included 88.89% of the teachers interviewed. This is clearly evident from one of the responses from a teacher noting that: “...i’m aware that students often come to class with their own notions of what is and what is not ... some students’ classified mushrooms as plants, yet it was fungi, while some noted moulds as non plant items ...” (Interviewee). It was also evident from the in-class observations where students asked questions such as how the chemical formulas are often determined: what determines the symbols or numbers in the chemical formulas and what do such numbers have to do with the real chemicals. Others gave a wide array of misconceived answers to discussion questions such as plants make their foods from nutrients in the soil. Notable student misconceptions from the research findings included classification of fungi as a plant by biology students, viewing motion of objects similar to force applied within the objects, excluding lungs from the circulatory system, misconception that chemical formulas are abstract ideas separate from the chemicals themselves, and misconception that plants make their foods from nutrients in the soil rather than from the process of photosynthesis in the leaves. These findings have indeed been supported by previous findings by Thompson and Logue (2006), Guest, (2003), Chi (2005), and Black (2006), who have listed and noted similar misconceptions, and who have noted that indeed the wide research are in student misconceptions have provided rich knowledge on such issues. Kubiatko and Prokop (2007) and Thompson and Logue (2006) particularly noted that that the degree of misconceptions for different concepts varied with age. Older high school students tended to have lesser misconceptions than the younger students. Abdi (2006), Yip (1999), and Bransford (n.d.), particularly investigated notable areas found in this research: misconception that plants are not alive and misconception that lungs are not involved in blood circulation. In essence therefore, the results show that teachers are widely aware of the various misconceptions that students hold concerning a wide array of concepts in class, and that students often approach the topics with an already set mind frame. This result from the study is supportive of previous studies in analysing student misconceptions in science subjects though it uses the teacher’s viewpoint more than it does from the student’s viewpoint as most studies have done. Teacher’s awareness of research study Recommendations for overcoming Student misconceptions From the results arrived at after conducting interviews, it was noted that a 44.44% of teachers had average knowledge on the recommendations put forward by research studies on how to overcome student misconceptions in science. This is clearly noted from one of the responses of the teachers: “...aye, i have seen some of those studies in teachers conventions though i have not read one. I have though looked simplified brochures with steps on how to remove student misconception. These are easier to understand... i have put some in practice...” (Interviewee) Most of the teachers tended to learn these from teacher seminars and conferences, and through more summarized booklets than from the research papers. 22.22% of the interviewed teachers had deeper and extensive knowledge, while 33.33% hade little knowledge regarding research findings in student misconceptions and strategies to reduce them. Those who had little knowledge on such research findings tended to rely more on their experience and instinct to deal with student misconceptions, rather than recommended strategies. The finding that quite a number of teachers have average knowledge on research recommendations for overcoming student misconceptions are indeed supported by previous findings done by Pine, Messer and John (2011), Yip (1998:208-210) and Guzzetti (2000) where they noted that that the high level of research knowledge of science misconceptions has increased knowledge for practice, with notable key lesson learnt including the need for teachers to develop teacher guided and learner centred learning. They also noted that teachers were able to identify common misconceptions supported elsewhere in literature and noted that for more difficult concepts, the number of student misconceptions were even higher. The high level of teachers who had low levels of knowledge concerning recommendation in research study (33.33%) as compare to those who had extensive knowledge (22.22%), as evidenced in one response: “... no I don’t read such ...”, could probably be attributed to Yip’s (1998:208-210) research findings which noted that most teachers were unable to fully different between certain concepts thereby noting that teachers play a key role in students misconceptions as they have their own as well, and from Kikas (2002:438-443) and Atwood and Atwood (1997:5-7) research findings where teachers had some misconception on certain concepts in science with no significant difference on the level of experience for the teachers. This implies therefore that though a wider number of teachers have average knowledge of research findings and recommendation from research reports that support the elimination of student misconceptions, a only a few of them have extensive knowledge in research recommendations and with others having little knowledge and rather relying on experience to deal with any arising misconceptions in class. This research finding has implications for learning and raises the need for research findings to be made strategically available to teachers in schools. The research finding is supportive of previous research studies though is different from the others in the sense that this research study sought to connect research to practise and investigate whether research findings and recommendations on student misconceptions are being applied in the schooling environment and are known to teachers for whom they are meant for. Strategies Teachers use to overcome Student perceptions in science From the research results it can be noted that a higher percentage of teachers (55.56%) exhibited average knowledge in the strategies they employed to overcome student perceptions in science based on the available research recommendations. 33.33% of teachers exhibited superior knowledge in the strategies they used in class to deal with student misconceptions which aligned with research recommendations. This is as evidence in the responses from some of the teachers below: “...develop interactive learning sessions, and outside the classroom visits to study nature...” (interviewee). “...ask students to prove their viewpoints ... students do further research on the concept to dispel such notions ...” (Interviewee). “...ask students questions to understand their viewpoints ... follow it with group discussion among students... inform students of wrong notions ... require full researched topic on concept with the most distorted notions...” (interviewee). Connecting the above strategies used to already done research, it can be noted that to a wide extent these two align and merge. For instance Abdi (2006:39) posits that student misconceptions need be “confronted through hands-on and minds-on activities”. This is noted from the in-class observations where the teachers developed an inquiry environment to determine students’ misconceptions and thoughts through asking inquiry questions, and letting the students engage in discussion for self clarification of their views. It is also noted in interviews conducted where teachers showed that through discussions, experiments and observations, students get to take part in activities that enhance their knowledge. In addition teachers first asked students questions in order to understand their view points before proceeding to discuss about these viewpoints. This aligns well with Chiu and Lin’s (2004: 430, 460) research findings where they note that for effective learning, teaching starts from what is known by the students towards what is unknown through the use of analogies. It also aligns with Chi’ s (2005:193) views where he notes that it is important to understand the mental modes of the students with the conceptions, then making students aware that they need to shift their ideas and further help them construct a new idea through first building a schema. Use of experimental learning and observation aligns well with Vosniadou et al’s (2001) and Guzzetti’s (2000) views which shows that experimental learning environment where students are encourage to test and justify their misconceptions, take active control of their learning process, and debate among themselves concerning such misconceptions and their results in experiments is key to ensuring cognitive gains. Only 11.11% of teachers though mentioned of clarifying vocabularies and language first to students in removing misconceptions of science. This aligns with Guest’s (2003:6-7) work which recommends helping students first acquire the new vocabularies and correct language for use in science is key to eliminating misconceptions. From these alignments research to actual practise, it can be noted that quite a considerable number of teachers employ researched recommendations to deal with student misconceptions in class. This is despite the fact that in comparison not many teachers get to read full research reports and their recommendations. This phenomenon can probably be explained in that knowledge from the research reports are often transferred in various forms such as teacher conferences, interactions and seminars, and from teachers experience knowledge and instinct. Conclusions and recommendations The objective of this research topic was to understand how well science teachers use research recommendations to deal with student misconceptions in science, and whether research meets practise. In doing so first student misconceptions in science were evaluated and whether teachers had knowledge of such misconceptions. Research findings showed that in deed a bigger portion of teachers were aware of a wide array of student misconceptions in science. Notable misconceptions in this research were included classification of fungi as a plant by biology students, viewing motion of objects similar to force applied within the objects, excluding lungs from the circulatory system, misconception that chemical formulas are abstract ideas separate from the chemicals themselves, and misconception that plants make their foods from nutrients in the soil rather than from the process of photosynthesis in the leaves. In order to understand how research meet practise, teacher’s knowledge on research recommendations for dealing with student misconceptions in science had to be derived. The research findings showed that quite a number of teachers have average knowledge on research recommendations for overcoming student misconceptions with most of these obtaining such knowledge from teacher conferences, seminars, and interactions. Some teachers though had little knowledge of research evidence and rather dealt with misconceptions based on their experience, knowledge and instinct. Analyzing the actual strategies employed and researched evidence and recommendations given, it is noted that there exists a considerable alignment between these two and quite a considerable number of teachers employ researched recommendations to deal with student misconceptions in class. This is despite the fact that in comparison not many teachers have extensive knowledge of research report recommendations. This phenomenon can probably be explained in that knowledge diffusion from such reports occurs in via various forms such as teacher conferences, interactions and seminars. This research finding has implications for learning and raises the need for research findings to be made strategically available to teachers in schools. It also shows that indeed research works are being successfully adopted by teachers to solve various educational issues. This research though has raised the need for future study since this research study did not uncover how successful such strategy adoptions from research recommendations are since. This area goes beyond the scope in this paper. Therefore this research can serve as a basis upon which the success of various recommended strategies in class practise can be analysed and documented. References Abdi, S.W. (2006), “Correcting student misconceptions,” Science Scope (January). Atwood, R.K, & Atwood, V.A. (1997), “Effects of Instruction on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptions of the Causes of Night and Day and the Seasons,” Journal of Science Teacher Education 8, (1), 1-13. Black, S. (2006), “Is Science Education Failing Students?” American School Board Journal, 48-50. Bransford, J.D. (n.d.), “How Do I Get My Students Over Their Alternative Conceptions (Misconceptions)?” Bulunuz, N., Jarrett, O.S., & Bulunuz, M. (2008), “Fifth-Grade Elementary School Students’ Conceptions and Misconceptions about the Fungus Kingdom,” Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(3): 32-46. Chi, M.T. (2005), “Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust,” The Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199. Chiu, M.H., & Lin., J.W. (2005), “Promoting Fourth Graders’ Conceptual Change of Their Understanding of Electric Current via Multiple Analogies,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (4), 429–464. Guest, G. (2003), “Alternative Frameworks and Misconceptions in Primary Science,” UWE Bristol, at: http://www.ase.org.uk/sci-tutors/professional_issues/teaching_teaching/misconceptions.php, accessed 29 April 2012. Guzzetti, B. (2000), “Learning Counter-Intuitive Science Concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of Research?” Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 89-98. Hubisz, J. (2003), “Middle-School Texts Don’t make the Grade,” Physics Today, 50-54. Kikas, E. (2004), “Teachers’ Conceptions and Misconceptions Concerning Three Natural Phenomena,” Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, 41(5), 432-448. Kuabitko, M., & Prokop, P. (2007), “Pupils’ Misconceptions about Mammals,” Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(1), 5-14. Misbah, K., Zafar, M.I. (2009), “Children’s Misconceptions about Units on Changes, Acids and Laboratory Preparation of CO2,” Bulletin of Education and Research, 31(2), 61-74. Olson, C. (2004), “Basic Misconceptions of Middle School Science,” The Texas Science Teacher, 26-31. Pine, K., Messer, D., & John, S. (2001), “Children’s Misconceptions in Primary Science: a survey of teachers’ views,” Research in Science & Technological Education, 19, (1), 79-96 Thompson, F., & Logue, S. (2006), “An exploration of common student misconceptions in science,” International Education Journal, 7(4), 553-559. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A. & Papademetriou, E. (2001), “Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science,” Learning and Instruction 11, 381–419 Yip, D.Y. (1998), “Teachers’ Misconceptions of the Circulatory,” Journal of Biological Education, 32(3): 207-215 Appendices: Appendix one: interview results on number of teachers in key focus areas Key focus area Little knowledge and practise Average Knowledge and practise Extensive knowledge and Practise Knowledge on student misconceptions 1 teacher 5 teachers 3 teachers Knowledge on Research recommendations and application of these 3 teachers 4 teachers 2 teachers Strategies used to overcome student misconceptions 1 teachers 5 teachers 3 teachers Appendix two: Interview Questions: 1. How many years have you been teaching? 2. What is your teaching specialty? 3. While teaching a new topic, how significant is it that you find out what students already know? 4. What methods do you use to find out what student’s already know about the topic? 5. Give me three examples of student misconceptions that you have come across in your practise as a teacher 6. How often do you come across student misconceptions? 7. How do you deal with student misconceptions in your class? 8. Are you aware of any recommendations from research studies on how to deal with student misconceptions? 9. What are they? 10. How did you get to know of these recommendations? 11. Do you use these recommendations? Read More