Entering the teaching profession via a back door—the home schooling of two of my own children—I became fascinated by how children appear to learn the fundamental skills of writing and reading and, in particular, how they learn to interpret the natural world. This original fascination was strengthened several years later when I became a science teacher. Suddenly, I had fifty 5th and 6th graders whose varied interpretations of the natural world fueled my desire to understand how children learn science.
At this point, I discovered the works of Audrey Champagne, Jim Minstrell, Roger Osborne, and others who were addressing the same phenomenon I had observed in my own children (Champagne et al. 1985, Minstrell 1982, Osborne and Freyberg 1985). That is, students enter school with a plethora of experiences, use this foundation to form personal theories (often erroneous) about the world, and rarely correct misconceptions even when new information is presented to them.
Personally rewarding as it was for me to locate a body of research that supported my own experiences, I also recognized that classroom change ultimately depends on a teacher's ability to interpret and carry out suggested reforms. The isolation in which most teachers work, however, hinders their ability to test personal interpretations of the research and to critique the results.
I found the means to overcome this limitation in 1991 at a workshop on Conceptual Change Science sponsored by the University of Rochester. The workshop was directed by Richard Thorley, an associate professor of education with a background in physics teaching. Conceptual change science, or “whole science” as he calls it, is his special area of interest. However, Thorley's experience had largely been with older students. Therefore, it met both of our needs to spend time in my 5th grade classroom looking closely at how younger students learn science.
Our Approach
- determine how children explain a phenomenon related to electricity;
- have them conduct experiments based on their theories;
- if their theories and experimental evidence clash, help them make the transition from erroneous to proven theories; and
- evaluate final understandings.
In September we spent about eight weeks teaching electricity in this manner. It was never our intent to compile statistical data but, rather, to broaden our understanding of children's science learning via case studies with broad application to any classroom.
The first year was truly a learning year. Thorley and I developed our own lab sheets, explored students' interests and ability to work in a discussion/activity/evaluation manner, and developed written tests to gauge their level of understanding. During the second year, we built on what we had learned in the first year. Again, we worked with 5th graders for six to eight weeks on the topic of electricity.
In the Classroom
To help students make connections between laboratory experiences and their own theories, we adapted the “predict-observe-explain” strategy (Champagne et al. 1985). We asked students to predict the outcomes of a particular circuit (the brightness of light bulbs, for example), explain the theory behind their predictions, observe the results of the experiment, and then discuss the results in light of their initial theory.
Before students conducted the experiments, we had them explain their theories to one another and field questions. During these discussions, it was not unusual for students to change their positions if others pointed out obvious inconsistencies. Thinking about the reasons behind their predictions and debating them with others gave students a much better sense of what was at stake when they did finally test their predictions in the laboratory.
Varying discussion time and hands-on time in a way that kept students involved proved to be an art. Some days we were successful, other days not. It is important that teachers cultivate their skills in monitoring discussions as well as in guiding hands-on activities. Both skills are essential to conceptual change science—as is the ability to know when to vary one's approach.
For example, after two days of working with electrical circuits, some students were losing interest. We decided to let students design and execute their own experiments, provided that they first presented a “proposal.” To have their ideas approved, students had to draw the circuit they wanted to test, make predictions, and explain the theories behind them. One of our most successful lessons, in fact, was a class conference held after two days of student-designed experiments. Whenever possible, Thorley and I video-taped the class discussions. Over time, we began to build a useful record of successful discussions to help improve our skills as monitors.
Because students at this level can find expository writing to be laborious, we opted not to administer written assessment forms. Students can become so absorbed in the skill of writing that they lose sight of the idea they are trying to express. Instead, we selected students of both sexes and all academic abilities for individual interviews about their theories.
Interviews should follow the same format as teacher-monitored classroom discussions. That is, students must feel secure that their ideas, even if incorrect, are valued. Thus, the questioner must maintain a supportive, but nonjudgmental tone. If not, students quickly learn to play the game of providing the “correct” answer, keeping their real ideas to themselves. Although finding time to conduct these interviews was difficult, the results were valuable. Students gave us insights into their thinking that didn't come through in their written work. In addition, watching Thorley interview students and later reviewing tapes of my own interviews greatly enhanced my own questioning techniques. The classroom tapes are also useful teaching tools. Both of us have used them at workshop presentations.
Teaching as Research
During the past two years, we have identified, documented, and dissected the problem—but we are a long way from a solution. In fact, the depth of the problem has surprised us. Personal theories change slowly, even when physical evidence contradicts their very foundations. We sometimes saw students correct a misconception, but then inappropriately use new information to distort the correct theory. Yet unless we make some effort to explore students' personal theories, we will continue to graduate college students with their childhood misconceptions virtually untouched.
On the positive side, students at a grade 5 level are capable of employing sophisticated science reasoning. While it is impossible to evaluate whether teaching students to test and revise personal theories throughout their school years ultimately affects their views of the natural world, this approach unquestionably offers more hope than current methods of science instruction.
Clearly, there is no simple procedure for “teaching away” students' misconceptions. Conceptual change appears to require an ongoing solution. Therefore, Thorley and I will continue working with 5th graders to increase our own knowledge base and to bring our findings to the attention of others. We have come to realize that in a very important way, teaching is research.
The knowledge I have gained working with a university researcher on the topic of electricity has had a ripple effect throughout my science program. Whether introducing acids and bases to 5th graders or working outside with 6th graders at a creek, I am always aware that my students already have theories that explain why acids burn or how crayfish survive the winter cold. Helping them understand the basis of their own reasoning and test it against the real world has become for me a fundamental curricular approach.
Our experience is only one example of a teacher/university researcher relationship. It demonstrates, however, that both parties can benefit from such partnerships. I brought to the situation a wealth of experience and insights about working with 5th graders. Richard Thorley brought content depth and a knowledge of research-supported approaches. Working as a team, moreover, gave us an opportunity to share the moment-to-moment events of the classroom that would not have been possible had we been working in isolation.
