How Students Learn

          Incorrect Prior Knowledge in Mathematics and Science: 
     Preconceptions / Alternative Conceptions / Naive Ideas / Commonsense Ideas

What Are They? ‘Prior knowledge’, ‘preconception’, ‘misconception’, ‘alternative conception’, ‘naive idea’, and ‘commonsense idea’ are some of the many terms ascribed to individual thinking patterns that create problems with respect to science learning and teaching (DiSessa, 1988; Fisher & Kibby, 1992; Wandersee et al., 1994). Individuals often develop their own personal explanations about how things work, and at other times accept explanations offered by friends or family. When these explanations seem sufficient for understanding, explaining and anticipating events, they are assumed to be true. Sometimes students’ personal theories about phenomena are sensible (Warren et al., 2001). On the other hand, students’ conceptions of phenomena are often inconsistent with those of science (Posner et al., 1982; Smith, 1991), and these prior ideas can interfere, consciously or unconsciously, with students’ science learning. The term ‘commonsense idea’ (Chi, 2005) suggests that individuals have drawn their own ‘commonsense’ conclusions about how something works in the absence of relevant scientific knowledge. Yet some scientists are offended by this term; they apparently feel that ‘commonsense’ implies accuracy while ‘misconception’ implies erroneous. Why Are Preconceptions Important? Preconceptions present a huge issue for science teaching and learning. Preconceptions can seriously interfere with students’ abilities to comprehend, accept and retain claims in science (Chi, 2005; Bransford et al., 1999). Simply put, an individual’s preconceptions are not easily altered or replaced. Lecture teaching, the most common form of instruction, has been found to be a particularly inadequate instructional format for helping students modify their preconceptions and build upon them to develop meaningful science understanding. Well-designed hands-on lessons with peer conversations and a good ‘guide on the side’ (that is, an effective teacher/coordinator) tend to be significantly more successful. Simple experiments that reveal the inadequacies of an individual’s preconceptions can often help students appreciate the value of the scientific concept being presented. Mitigating the Negative Effects of Preconceptions on Science Learning. In ‘student generated inquiry discussions’ (van Zee et al., 2001) and ‘reasoning episodes’ (Reddy et al., 1998), students working in small groups tend to describe observations they have made, identify evidence they believe supports their observations, and provide their favored explanations to one another. They discuss their conflicting thoughts, argue, and typically with a ‘guide on the side,’ are often able to move toward the scientific viewpoint. For more about the processes and challenges of conceptual change, see Chi and Roscoe (2002). Where Do Preconceptions Occur? Preconceptions occur in young children, middle and high school students, college students, and adults – in other words, in virtually everyone (Helm & Novak, 1983; Driver & Erickson, 1983; Driver, 1983, 1985; Novak, 1991, 1993). Preconceptions have been documented by many thousands of studies conducted on many topics and in many countries (Pfundt & Duit, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994). People worldwide share many of the same preconceptions. The resistance of preconceptions to being ‘taught away’ is similarly observed in all cultures. What Is an Example of a Preconception? To illustrate the tenacity of students’ prior knowledge, consider this question. Typically, a large proportion of upper division college biology majors will respond incorrectly to this question:

Where does the weight of a dry log come from? a. water b. soil c. air d. sunshine

Light (sunshine) is necessary for photosynthesis to occur, but it does not provide the weight of the plant. Water is also necessary for photosynthesis to occur, adds to the weight of the plant, but has been removed from a log that is dry. The soil provides a plant with nutrients necessary for growth, but the amounts are small, similar to vitamins taken by humans. The correct response is that plants construct themselves out of thin air. Specifically, plants withdraw carbon dioxide from the air and use it to assemble the building blocks of their bodies (carbohydrates). References

•Bransford JD, AL Brown, & RR Cocking. 1999. How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press •Chi, M. T. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. J. Learn. Sci. 14, 161–199. •Chi, M., and Roscoe, R. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In: Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice, M. Limón and L. Mason, eds. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 3–27. •DiSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall, Eds., Constructivism in the computer age., 49-70. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Donovan, MS & Bransford JD. •Fisher, K. M. & Kibby, M. R. (1992). Knowledge acquisition, organization and use in biology. New York: Springer. •Helm, H. & Novak, J.D. (1983). Proceedings of the first international seminar: Misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics: Vol. I, Ithaca, NY, Department of Education, Cornell University. •Driver, R. & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-Action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60. •Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press, ISBN:033510178X. •Driver, R. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, ISBN:0335150403.Novak, J.D. (1987). Proceedings of the second international seminar: Misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics: Vol. II, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University. •Novak, J.D. (1991). ‘Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning’, Instructional Science (19), 1–25. •Novak, J. D. (1993). Proceedings of the Third International Seminar: Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Vol. III. Ithaca, NY: Department of Education, Cornell University. Pfundt, Helga & Duit, Reinders. (1985). Bibliography: Students' alternative frameworks and science education. First Edition. Institut fur die Padagogik der Naturwissenschaften (Institute for Science Education), an der Universitat Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 62, D-2300 Kiel 1, Federal Republic of Germany.** Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (1988). Bibliography: Students' alternative frameworks and science education, Second Edition. Institut fur die Padagogik der Naturwissenschaften (Institute for Science Education), an der Universitat Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 62, D-2300 Kiel 1, Federal Republic of Germany. Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography: Students' alternative frameworks and science education, Third Edition. Institut fur die Padagogik der Naturwissenschaften (Institute for Science Education), an der Universitat Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 62, D-2300 Kiel 1, Federal Republic of Germany. Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (1994). Bibliography: Students' alternative frameworks and science education, Fourth Edition. Institut fur die Padagogik der Naturwissenschaften (Institute for Science Education), an der Universitat Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 62, D-2300 Kiel 1, Federal Republic of Germany. •Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 221-227. •Reddy, M., Jacobs, P., McCrohon, C., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1998). Creating scientific communities in the Elementary classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann. •Smith, E. L. (1991). A conceptual change model of learning science. In S. Glynn, R.Yeany & B. Britton (Eds.), Psychology of Learning Science (pp. 43-63). Hillsdale: Lawrenece Erlbaum. •van Zee, E., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 150-190. •Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., Novak, J. D., and Gabel, D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In: Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 177–210. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.