Caryn Asherson
SED 690
Dr. Foley
Fall, 2007
Misconception Report
As teachers, we enter each school year ready to impart our knowledge and our love of
science to our students. We imagine filling their blank slates with an extensive understanding
and awareness of science. In actuality, students enter our classrooms with a magnitude of prior
knowledge and experiences that affect how they make sense of the natural world. These
previous experiences influence students’ abilities to obtain new knowledge.
According to the National Research Council, people construct new knowledge and
understanding based on what they already know (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000). As a
result, teachers need to be aware of the “incomplete understandings of concepts that students
bring with them” (Libarkin and Kurdziel, 2001, p.378). It is important to discover what students’
initial ideas are and then monitor how those ideas change throughout a unit. In this way,
teachers can make certain that students are learning scientific concepts correctly.
Misconceptions about Plate Tectonics
When talking to students about processes that shape the Earth, some students have
knowledge that is fundamentally correct, but their understanding is incomplete or may be
somewhat flawed (Ford and Taylor, 2006). A common misconception of students is the belief
that the mantle is made up of molten rock and considered a fluid. Furthermore, students often
think that the lithospheric plates float upon this molten rock. Consequently, students frequently
misinterpret the basis for the movement of the continents. One common misconception is the
assumption that the rotation of the Earth is what causes the continents to move. What is more,
they repeatedly think that the continents float on the oceans and that the oceanic currents are
responsible for continental drift.
One study which investigated students’ ideas about plate tectonics reveals that learners
believe that large gaps exist between Earth’s plates. Moreover, they think that earthquakes are
formed when two plates crash together, much like two cars crashing together. They suppose that
the bigger the crash, the bigger the earthquake. They are also unlikely to distinguish the
difference between plates and continents. In addition, some think that the plates are deep inside
the Earth and have nothing to do with the Earth’s surface (Ford and Taylor, 2006).
Possible Origins of Misconceptions
Plate tectonics has been found to be difficult for students to learn for many reasons. Very
few of the components of the theory of plate tectonics are directly observable (Gobert, 2000).
Students cannot directly observe the convection of the mantle and the building of mountains.
Additionally, the size scale is hard for students to understand (Gobert, 2000). Students see many
diagrams in their textbooks of the plates and the inside of the Earth, but it is difficult for them to
really grasp the size of many of Earth’s features.
Implications for Instruction
Despite the fact that students may have deeply held misconceptions about a subject, it is
important that they are given ample opportunities to discuss their ideas (Bransford, Brown, and
Cocking, 2000). This involves giving students time to talk about and share their thoughts. As a
result, teachers will get a chance to observe students’ ways of thinking.
Next, teachers need to identify student misconceptions. This can be done by creating
questionnaires that draw out students’ thinking. Students can be asked to explain their answer
choices. In doing so, teachers can get a better understanding of the students’ thoughts about a
topic. The same questionnaires can be given after finishing the unit to see if and how students’
ideas have changed after instruction.
Another method for identifying misconceptions is to have students build concept maps.
These diagrams can show the correlations that students make between a major concept and the
new concepts they have learned. Libarkin and Kurdziel (2001) suggest, “By reading a concept
map from top to bottom, an instructor can gain insight into the way students view a scientific topic
and examine the valid understandings and misconceptions students hold” (p.380). Moreover,
when students become skilled at creating concept maps, teachers can create concept maps in
which certain sections are left blank and students work in groups to fill in the missing ideas
(Libarkin and Kurdziel, 2001). This can be an effective way of encouraging students to talk about
their ways of thinking. As a result, their understanding will be uncovered, as well as their
confusion.
It is not enough to only identify student misconceptions. Once they have been
recognized, there are several teaching techniques that assist in the improvement of
comprehension. One method is to teach science through inquiry. The inquiry approach
encourages students to practice the skills and thinking processes that real scientists use. In How
People Learn, the authors suggest, “Teachers need to find situations that engage students in
cognitive conflict and then discuss the conflicting viewpoints (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking,
2000, p.319).” Therefore, teachers need to provide students with authentic tasks that challenge
their initial beliefs, thus enabling them to practice thinking like genuine scientists. Such early
practical experiences can help alleviate students’ misconceptions that may be hard to overcome
later in their learning.
It is also important for teachers to use formative assessment strategies to monitor the
progress of student ideas throughout a unit and to modify their teaching accordingly (Shepard,
2000). For example, students can answer prompts like “Today I learned __________, but I’m
not clear on __________.” Also, students can make drawings of their ideas (Ford and Taylor,
2006). These are quick ways for teachers to assess student thinking.
Lastly, teachers need to be aware of how language, visuals, and models can influence
students’ thinking (Michael, 1999). Using certain language can reinforce misconceptions in
students. For instance, when describing how two plates move apart, the teacher may
unknowingly be strengthening the idea that there are gaps between the plates. Having students
use their hands to model the plate movements can also sustain the idea that there are spaces
between the plates (Ford and Taylor, 2006). If a teacher suggests that two plates are crashing
into one another, the idea that the plates are moving at fast speeds may be unintentionally
implied. Furthermore, diagrams in textbooks may create misunderstandings. For example, the
inside of the Earth is usually depicted in books with varying colors of red, orange, and yellow.
This may encourage the misinterpretation that the mantle is made up of molten liquid and that the
plates are floating on this liquid (Ford and Taylor, 2006).
Conclusion
Educators are in agreement that several misconceptions are deeply ingrained in students
and students are exceptionally resistant to change these ideas. Even when students are
instructed on the correct concepts, they will often revert back to their original thinking soon after
instruction (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000). However, there are cases in which students’
inaccurate understandings about a topic may not be so impervious to change. Thus, it remains
important for teachers to take notice of students’ conceptions and to keep an eye on their
progress throughout a unit to make certain that the correct ideas are being cultivated. By
identifying misconceptions early and using inquiry as a teaching strategy, teachers can challenge
students’ beliefs about a subject and encourage them to question their ideas and ultimately
reconstruct their misunderstandings. Moreover, teachers need to be aware of how models and
visual representations can positively and negatively affect student learning. In the end, using
these methods will enable teachers to advance student learning and ultimately construct
foundations upon which potential new knowledge can be built.
References
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association (5th Edition). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Ford, B., Taylor, M. (2006). Investigating students’ ideas about plate tectonics. Science Scope, 30
(1), 38-43.
Gobert, J. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers
to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (9), 937-977.
Libarkin, J.C., and Kurdziel, J.P. (2001). Research methodologies in science education:
Assessing Students’ alternative conceptions. Journal of Geoscience Education, 49 (4), 378-383.
Marques, L., and Thompson, D. (1997). Misconceptions and conceptual changes concerning
continental drift and plate tectonics among Portuguese students age 16-17. Research in Science
and Technological Education, 15, 195-222.
Michael, J.A., Richardson, D., Rovick, A. (1999). Undergraduate students’ misconceptions about
respiratory physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 22 (1), 127-135.
Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29,
4-14.