The Research Perspective on
Teaching and Learning
Science
Claudine Kavanagh
Doctoral Candidate
Tufts University
Museum of Science, Boston
Goals of this talk
 General overview of science education
findings related to space science.
 Multidisciplinary synthesis.
 No methodological details.
 Teach through examples.
Four questions:
1. What does the research say about
understanding science?
2. What does research say about the most
effective ways to share science information?
3. How do we deal with misconceptions in a
gentle way that moves the public forward?
4. How can scientists help to address some of the
misconceptions?
“An analysis of students’ misconceptions
reveals that intuitive knowledge consists
of a number of fundamental experiential
beliefs and that understanding a scientific
theory requires replacing those beliefs
with a different explanatory framework.
For instruction to be effective, in bringing
about conceptual change, we need to
identify those experiential beliefs, to
provide students with enough reasons to
question them, and to offer a different
explanatory framework to replace the
one they already have” (Vosniadou,
1991).
Learning trajectory
 Initial knowledge based solely on
experience
 Misconceptions are based on attempting
to accommodate new information into
existing knowledge. Students may
transition through many hybrid
frameworks.
 Finally, some (not nearly all) may
internalize (own) scientifically accepted
version of subject.
“Sense-making” activities
 Are vitally important
 Aren’t synonymous with ignorance.
 Students use all analytical tools available to
them




Culture
Religious
Parascientific
Observation …. and Science
What about adult learners?
 Most American adults do not believe in modern
cosmology, biological evolutionary theory,
geological timeframe, modern theories of
planetary formation. Science is not internalized
by most American adults. (Gallup)
 Adults’ beliefs/understandings often don’t differ
greatly from children’s ideas. (Teacher data re:
gravity)
 No overlap between belief in science and
understanding of science. (Shtulman)
Children’s cosmology
example
 Initial knowledge: flat, static earth
 Intermediate hybrid models
 Dual earth (one flat “dirt earth” and one
globe earth in space)
 Stationary globe earth or “terrarium” earth
 Fully scientific models (not a universal
belief, even among adults)
Tonight’s sky example
 Consider three bright red objects:
 Mars, red star in Orion, red star in Taurus
 ~ same apparent magnitude, size and
distance
 Vastly different absolute magnitude, size
and distance
How are these objects connected,
according to your audience? 2D model?
3D model? Origin of the light?
More learning trajectory
 Intuitive model only internalized, adult/scientific
model only memorized by rote.
 Transitional understanding when learner becomes
aware of contradictions and seeks to resolve them
using available tools, including observation and
quasi-experimentation.
 Finally, adult/scientific model internalized, but this
does not necessarily mean the prior understanding
are totally extinguished.
 Consider the question: Do heavier objects fall
faster? Adults often hold to Aristotelian notions.
 Lab experiences in school? Too confiirmatory!
(Hanuscin, 2000).
Misconceptions retained
through adulthood
 What causes the phases of the moon?
(more on this in a minute…)
 What do the phases of the moon look
like from the Southern Hemisphere?
 What do the phases of the moon look
like from the equator?
Common misconceptions
 Almost every idea in science has documented
misconceptions associated with it (Phases of the
Moon, Earth, Stars, Seasons, Energy, Gravity… ).
 These sets of common ideas have been
catalogued across cultures, age ranges and
educational levels (e.g. “support theory” in
gravity).
 Tend to fade with increased education, but not
always so.
Fundamental cognition?
 Fundamental cognitive structure as yet
unknown
 phenomenological primitives (diSessa)
 naïve theories (Vosniadou among others)
 “One thing that is apparent from the
literature is that despite the fact that
conceptual routes and mechanisms are
poorly understood, children’s (learners’)
ideas can and do change” (Sharp, 1996).
What does the research
say about understanding
science?
 Aristotle is alive and well and living
among the undergraduates (McCloskey,
Whitaker).
 Many naïve theories survive intact after
formal science instruction (widely
reported in gravity research).
What does the research
say about understanding
science?
 Students apply scientific language to nonscientific understandings, and sometimes
teachers do too! (gravity, evolution, energy)
 Your audience is likely to create an original
hybrid idea from your info and their own ideas.
 Be careful about the assumptions you make,
even with “educated” audiences.
 Even undergraduate science students have a
poor understanding of what a ‘theory’ is, how to
evaluate evidence and how to develop
hypotheses. (Dagher & Boujaoude)
What does the research say
about sharing science
information?
 Help your audience come to the correct
conclusion on their own, whenever
possible.
 Direct teaching methods don’t allow
individuals in your audience to critically
examine their own prior knowledge.
 Your information is likely to “lump” on
top of non-scientific ideas about your
subject, or be improperly integrated.
What does the research say
about sharing science
information?
 Find more than one way to convey what
you want to address to your audience.
 The audience can listen with their hands
 Teachers who use hand gestures to convey
information were rated as more successful in
teaching new concepts to students.
What does the research say
about sharing science
information?
 Teach the nature of science explicitly as you also
relate the findings of science (Brickhouse).
 What makes science different from other forms of
knowledge? (Induction/Deduction)
 Why is the nature of scientific knowledge tentative?
 What is there to gain from using scientific tools of
analysis to answer a question?
 Why does science embrace skepticism?
 What are scientific theories?
 What questions can scientific methods NOT answer?
How do we deal with
misconceptions in a gentle
way?
 Whenever possible, ask questions that
will elicit your audience’s ideas about
the subject at hand.
 Ask questions to dig into their deeper
understanding of fundamental
mechanisms (solar system: planets, but
not gravity).
How do we deal with
misconceptions in a gentle
way?
 Find teaching methods that promote
conceptual change, while acknowledging
your audience’s developmental
perspective.
 Moon phases example:
Teaching moon phases
 Credit where due:
Thanks to Dr. William Waller
How can scientists help to
address some of the
misconceptions?
 Research the common misconceptions in your
field (“Bird Guide” model).
 Recognize the relationship between common
misconceptions and fundamental
misunderstandings (planets, gravity).
 Make yourself available at community education
events, schools, libraries, star parties, church
events.
 Make science real. (Feynman ice water and Car
Talk)
How can scientists help to
address some of the
misconceptions?
 Engage learners’ concept of reality and
causality.
 Caution with language: Earth is round (like a
globe or a pizza?)
 Experts’ problem solving skills are strikingly
different from novices’ problem solving skills
(Chi, Slotta)
 Experts see underlying, abstract issues.
 Novices report on only the surface features of the
problem.
 Example: gravity versus memorizing the order of the
planets.
How can scientists help to
address some of the
misconceptions?
 Even adult learners with a great deal of
education can struggle with basic concepts
related to science (physics, astronomy).
 Can technology help? Hansen (2004) found
gains in spatial reasoning and visualization by
using 3D computer modeling.
 On the other hand planetariums may reinforce
Aristotelian concepts.
How can scientists help to
address some of the
misconceptions?
 Your audience’s existing framework must be
made to seem inadequate.
 This allows your audience to create analytical
leverage to hoist old understanding out.
 All misconceptions are “sense-making” activities
and are not just crude ignorance.
 Historical understandings.
 Ideas themselves are only “alive” when people
hold them as valid. (my “Fahrenheit 451”
theory)
Why focus on scientific
understanding among the
general public?
 Audience?
Why focus on scientific
understanding among the
general public?
 Three distinct cultural movements exist currently
in America currently:
science / nonscience / antiscience
(examples?)
positive / neutral / negative
Public funding of scientific research requires public
understanding of scientific findings and
rationales. (SCSC / Hubble space telescope/
Beyond Einstein project)
Final questions
How does anybody ever learn anything?
Nothing happens immediately…
What is the cost of doing this?
Conceptual selectivity
Isn’t this awfully time consuming?
Yes
Q&A
Recommended:
Franknoi, Astronomy Education: A Selective
Bibliography (1998).
(www.astrosociety.org/education/resourc
es/educ_bib.html).
Sadler, Astronomy’s Conceptual Hierarchy
(via ASP)
Neil Comins, Heavenly Errors
Claudine Kavanagh
 Claudine.kavanagh@tufts.edu
 (Kavanagh, Agan, Sneider) Learning
about Phases of the Moon and Eclipses:
A Guide for Teachers and Curriculum
Developers. Astronomy Education Review
 (Kavanagh, Sneider) Learning about
Gravity: A Guide for Teachers and
Curriculum Developers. (coming soon)
Groups
 Moon (phases, etc.) – Claudine (Phil 3) /
Cass
 Solar System Scale – Marilyn / Jackie
 Seasons – Christine
 Lunar Exploration – Phil Plait (1)
 Mars – Sheri
 Solar System / Galaxies / the Universe –
Phil Sadler (2)
 Other – will divide into other groups