Research activity on Constructivism and Student Misconceptions

Research Activity
Constructivism and Student Misconceptions: Why Every Teacher Needs to Know About Them

The article I chose to do this research activity on was "Constructivism and Student
Misconceptions: Why Every Teacher Needs to Know About Them" by Audrey Sewell (Appendix A).
I believe this article addresses a key idea that all teachers should be aware of, student misconceptions. For this paper I will start by summarizing the key ideas, then I will go on to discuss how they relate to the topics covered in our course, and finally I will discuss the impacts of this issue on my Philosophy of Education. I should note here, this article is designed for a primarily for science teachers, but the concept of Constructivism is something all teachers should be aware of. I recommend reading this article to every teacher.
Philosophical Issue The main Philosophical issue presented in this article is how students really learn knowledge, and how their pre-existing knowledge can prove to be a major barrier. This article discusses this in combination with Constructivism, which in itself is a separate teaching philosophy. This is something that we as teachers should be aware of, for if we do not fully understand how students learn then how can we teach them anything? The main point of this article is student misconceptions. By this, the article means the incorrect information that students already have as their existing knowledge. I should point out here, the students knowledge helps them make sense of the world. The knowledge they walk into our classes with helps them see the world, which may be problematic for some subject areas that teach things that are not intuitive (especially science, where much of our lesson as deal with things that may seem somewhat strange). We must be aware of the fact that all of our students already have some knowledge (or beliefs) about what we are to teach them, and that knowledge may be wrong. So what does this mean? Won't our students just get rid of their wrong information and replace it with the correct information? You would think the simple answer to this is "of course", but you would be wrong. People rarely get rid of what they know, and often our students temporarily learn the correct information to get through the test, but then rapidly revert to the knowledge they already had before you "taught" them anything. In fact, when students are faced with new knowledge that goes against the knowledge they already know, research shows they have 4 methods of dealing with that conflict: 1) Delete the existing wrong information. This is the most difficult for people to do, as it requires them to forget what they already know, and hence means they have to change how the world makes sense to them. This is not often done by people. 2) Modify the existing wrong information to make that information correct. This requires people to merely adjust their knowledge rather then forget about it completely. In my opinion, this is what we as teachers need to strive for. Unfortunately, as this takes some conscious effort, it is not often done by students. 3) Modify the incoming new knowledge. This sounds OK, but what it does is change the new information to something that is now wrong, and then creates a second misconception. This is not what we want to happen. We want to eliminate misconceptions, not create more. 4) Reject the new incoming knowledge. This is the most often occurrence, as it requires the least energy, and people do not have to change how they see the world.
Out of these ways, the first method is most desirable. So, that sounds simple enough, just convince your students to forget their incorrect information so you can replace it with correct information.
Easy right? Wrong. Students have constructed the knowledge they already have to help them make sense of the world, so deleting this information is a very difficult task. The next most beneficial method for correcting these misconceptions is to modify the students existing knowledge. This is where
Constructivism comes into play (I will also mention this helps with the first method as well). Constructivism is a theory (or Philosophy) on how students learn. According to this theory, students construct their own knowledge based upon their experiences. What this means is they have already constructed some knowledge about what we are to teach them, and some of that knowledge is not correct, as we teach them some things that are counter intuitive. So how do we use constructivism to our advantage, with regards to correcting their misconceptions? Well, the easiest and most direct way is to modify their knowledge by giving them the experience of science, allowing them to experience the counter intuitive aspect of science. I think the most direct example of this I can use is teach the students a discrepant event. A discrepant event is a type of activity or demonstration you do with the class where the intuitive thought of what will happen before the experiment is not what actually happens! I have attached an example of a discrepant event developed by myself and a colleague in the fall (Appendix B). This type of teaching forces the students to rethink and modify what they know because it disagrees with what the already know. This is how we as teachers, especially science teachers, can really break the student misconceptions. This philosophy is very important when teaching, especially in science. This philosophy is widely supported, and most science teachers agree with it, as it helps solve these student misconceptions.
Relating to our Course Constructivism and Student misconceptions relate to the topics discussed in our course in different ways. Primarily, Constructivism is a learning philosophy, and as such I will discuss it with ties to our course. Student misconceptions is a type of knowledge, and therefore I will discuss this with relation to what we have discussed in the course. Constructivism is a philosophy based around how knowledge is obtained and retained. As such, this philosophy is primarily of the "epistemology" type, as it is primarily concerned with knowledge and how learning takes place. Based on our class readings, Constructivism is essentially "Knowing based on Experience" combined with "Knowing based on Reason and Logical Analysis". We also must have a belief of what knowledge is right and wrong, and what the difference is between them (Ethics). There is also a Metaphysical aspect of Constructivism, albeit minor, as we are trying to teach how the world really is and what really happens, rather then the students misconceptions. The next class topic that can be related to Constructivism is the philosophical orientation. We discussed 5 major orientations, and to properly categorize Constructivism we need to merge multiple of these orientations. Constructivism can be seen as an Essentialist Orientation, as Constructivism is meant to me practical and should provide students with instruction to help prepare them to live life. Constructivism can also be seen as a Progressivist Orientation, as it is very student centred and does concern itself with students interests and pre-existing knowledge, and Constructivism is meant to be active learning rather then passive. I must also point out that our readings do mention Constructivism as well. Student misconceptions are a little harder to relate to our course material, but it can still be done. The main issue with misconceptions is the debate between what is correct knowledge and what is incorrect knowledge. In many subject this can be a matter of debate. We are a little more fortunate in science, as what we are considering to be correct is what we have proven and observed, and can easily observe. For instance, we can prove gravity exists and measure the gravitational force by simply dropping anything and taking some measurements. Does this mean we do not have to worry about it? Absolutely not, we need to be aware and be prepared to battle the misconceptions our students bring with them. One of the huge examples of what is the correct knowledge is the Evolution vs Creation. In Biology, we teach evolution, so does that mean it is correct? Well, that is a tough question, and really comes down to what everyone believes and what religion they follow. Ethically, this is something I do not look forward to being asked, as no matter what there is no correct way to answer this question. Misconceptions can also be viewed from a metaphysical aspect. As stated earlier, students construct their knowledge to help make sense of the world as they see it. What that means in these "misconceptions" is how they make sense of the world, are we to then say they are not seeing the world correctly? This then brings back the Ethics of what is right and wrong, and who are we to decide that? Once again, I must say that as a Science teacher we teach what we can prove, and therefore what we know is right. This makes me think about other subjects, such as English (Sorry, English always seems to be my alternate side to Science). In English, who is to say what a student feels is the theme of a novel is right of wrong? Is it wrong because it is different? This concept of misconceptions has a variety of meanings, and a variety of effects, based on the subject. Once again, in Science, using Constructivist theories and methods we can battle these student misconceptions effectively. This article goes into great detail on what exactly teachers should be made aware of regarding student misconceptions. Much of this is summarized above, and the rest is more related to science methodology and ways in which we should try and teach science. I would like to mention here that even though this article is more geared towards Science, Constructivist theories and philosophies can be applied to all subject areas.
This Article's Impact on my Teaching Philosophy Before reading this article, I was already a Constructivist. After reading this article, I am even more of a Constructivist. This article reinforced my existing beliefs, and they are now stronger then ever. I think Constructivist methods work best for my subject areas, there are no other teaching theories that I have found to match up quite yet. This article also brings up a very important issue, how students learn. The issue of student learning is a very important issue. Personally, I love the theory of Constructivism. I believe it is very important for students to be able to construct their own knowledge, and as teachers we must know what misconceptions our students have. If we do not know what misconceptions our students have, how are we expected to teach them and build upon their knowledge? If we do not relate our course material with what they already know, and allow them to construct correct knowledge that allows them to make sense of the world, then they will not learn the material. The most important part of teaching is to have our students remember what we taught them, and for this to happen we must build upon what they already know, and correct their misconceptions. To put it simply, the issue under discussion (which is What is the best way to teach to students so they retain the correct information) directly effects every single teacher. We need to understand how our students learn, and we need to be willing to correct their misconceptions. How we do this is the tough question, but personally, I like using real world examples, demonstrations, and discussions in my classroom. I encourage the students to ask questions, and to think about how the course topics relate to the real world. I believe this will allow my students to relate the course topics to something real, and then this will allow them to construct their knowledge around this. This article also makes me ask the question, should we dismiss all of our students previous knowledge? As easy as this sounds (wipe it clean and then fill it with the correct knowledge), it is not something we should even consider. Our students knowledge is just as important, if not more important, for our teaching. I say this because I believe we need to engage our students, and incorporate their interests in our lessons. This is the best way, in my opinion, to teach students new knowledge and have them retain that knowledge. After all, is that not the ultimate goal of teaching?

Appendix A
Copy of the Article

Appendix B
Discrepant Event Example

Discrepant Event: Copper Pendulum Dave Dalton & Matthew Rogers

Materials:
Pennies (some copper and some steel)
Large C-Magnet
Metre Stick
Stand
Rigid Pendulum Arm (of length appropriate to stand height and pendulum size)
Copper Disc (3-5 inches in diameter)
Disc of similar size to the copper disk, made of a clearly non-magnetic substance ie. Plastic, Cardboard, Wood (optional)
Disc made of a magnetic metal ie. Iron, Steel, Nickel (optional)

Curricular links:
Grade 11/12 Physics 3204: Unit 2 – Fields

Primary Outcome: (328-7) analyze, qualitatively and quantitatively, electromagnetic induction by both a changing magnetic flux and a moving conductor

Secondary Outcomes: (328-1, 328-2) describe magnetic fields as regions of space in terms of poles and illustrate the source and direction of the lines of force

(325-13) explain quantitatively uniform circular motion using Newton’s laws (optional review from Unit 1)

Time: The time taken is up to the discretion of the teacher. The event can be used as a quick demonstration to introduce the topic. Ideally, through review, questioning, discussion, and extensions using different pendulums, it would be incorporated as a full hour class lesson/activity.

Science concepts:
This demonstration covers several useful concepts in Physics. The first would be a review of pendular motion. Students can recall what they have learned in the previous unit and apply it to a new situation. There is also some reference to material properties, particularly of copper, and the idea of ferromagnetism. Copper is a non-magnetic metal but it is a good conductor. Steel is shown to be a magnetic metal. The wood, plastic, or cardboard can be shown as non-magnetic and also as insulators. The main content covered involves magnetic fields and induction. The C-magnet provides a uniform magnetic field in one direction from the north pole to the south pole. The copper pendulum is then a conductor moving through a magnetic field. While copper is not affected by a magnet through the alignment of domains, as a moving conductor there is an effect. A conductor moving through a magnetic field has a current induced upon it. Here we can talk about Faraday’s Law and Lenz’s Law. Then by the Biot-Savart Law we see that the current generated in the copper disc induces its own magnetic field. Using the left- or right-hand rule we see how this interaction creates a force that stops the pendulum. Therefore this experiment touches on many aspects of this unit.

Misconceptions:
The first misconception that we want to bring into question is that all metal are magnetic. Students generally think that magnets stick to metal and all metal. The introduction of the experiment using pennies will show that this is not the case. The magnets will pick up pennies made of steel, but not ones made of copper. This will show that not all metals are magnetic. It also shows that not all pennies are made of copper which may be another misconception. Once students have established that copper is non-magnetic, they will likely assume that the magnet should then have no effect on the motion of the copper pendulum. This will be challenged once they see that the magnet in fact stops the pendulum. We can then show that for a non-magnetic non-metal like cardboard the magnet has no effect and for a magnetic metal like iron the disc will adhere to the magnet. The copper disc on the other hand stops, but does not attach itself to the magnet. Students may also think that currents cannot be generated in sheets or discs and are restricted to wires. They may also think that current and magnetism are completely unrelated. Through guided inquiry along with the demonstration, these ideas should be changed.

Questions:
Before the event:
What are pennies made of?
What can you tell me about copper?
What will happen if I drop a penny through the magnet?
Why did some pennies stick while others didn’t?
What happens when you swing a pendulum?
How high should the copper pendulum swing?

Using the metre stick we want them to believe we’re measuring pendulum amplitude and if a magnetic field influences the speed, amplitude, or frequency of the pendulum.

During the event:
How high does the pendulum actually swing?
What do we observe is happening?
What do you think is causing this to happen?
What would cause this to occur?

Other questions will be asked depending on student responses and as ideas are elaborated.

After the event:
Why did the pendulum stop moving? (How did this occur?)
Does it matter what material we use for the pendulum? Why/why not?
What would happen if we used copper wire wrapped in a loop? What if the loop contained a gap?
What did you think of the activity? Did you enjoy it? What did you learn?

Reference: Dave has demonstrated this apparatus in the past with the Let’s Talk Science program in conjunction with the Physics department at Memorial University.