(Page 1 of 3) - Elementary Teachers' Understanding of Students' Prior Science Knowledge: Implications for Practice and Teacher Education authored by Gomez-Zwiep, Susan. and McComas, William.

Elementary Teachers’ Understanding of Students’ Prior Knowledge

Gomez-Zwiep, S. & McComas, W..

Statement of the Issue

Children come to school having numerous experiences with the natural world. Through these
experiences they will develop their own ideas about the rules governing its existence. When the
child’s personal ideas conflict with the accepted scientific view, the child is said to have a
scientific misconception. (Guzetti, 2000; Nussbaum, 1979; Pine, Messer & St. John, 2001;
Sneider & Ohadi, 1998). The research on misconceptions shows that misconceptions about
science are common among students, that these misconceptions interfere with a student’s ability
to develop accurate scientific understanding, and that they are extremely difficult to remove
(Eryilmaz, 2002; Gabel, Stockton & Monaghan, 2001; Osborne & Cosgrove, 1983). If
individuals do build their own understanding of the world, and these personal understandings are
the basis for all future learning, misconceptions represent a serious roadblock for science
instruction. In addition, the misconception research clearly shows that students can frequently
verbally explain scientific phenomena or answer questions correctly on tests even though they
may maintain their misconceptions (Osborne & Cosgrove, 1983). It is then left to the teacher to
successfully navigate science instruction through student misconceptions and bridge the gap
between the accepted scientific understanding and these personal theories that students develop.

Literature Review

Constructivism tells us that students actively construct their understanding the world. The
learner determines the meaning of the experience, not the teacher. Empirical evidence has
shown that children have qualitative differences in their understanding of the world developed in
classrooms that is often at odds with what the teacher intended (Bar 1989; Bar, Zinn, Goldmuntz,
& Sneider, 1994; Pine, Messer & St. John, 2001; Tao & Gunstone, 1999; Trend, 2001).
Therefore, teachers cannot ignore the preexisting knowledge of the student because it will
determine how the student will interpret new information. In constructivism the aim of
instruction is to relate science concepts to the students’ everyday life. Instruction is not a one-
way communication from the teacher to the students. Rather, science lessons should become a
dialogue between the teacher, the text, the curriculum and students in an attempt to draw out
from students their preexisting knowledge and build their own construction of concepts.
Misconceptions

By the time a student enters school they have formed knowledge structures that they have

constructed in order to make sense of their experiences in the world (Guzetti, 2000; Nussbaum,
1979; Sneider & Ohadi, 1998). Students will use structures to make predictions about the world
and organize new experiences. Their preconceptions are partially based on their experiences in
school. However, during their everyday lives, students have also privately constructed meaning
about how the world works from their experiences outside the classroom. Many of these private
constructions reflect an accurate scientific view and teachers can use this prior knowledge to
assist students with new and expanded scientific constructs. When these private understandings
differ from the accepted scientific theory on the phenomenon it is said to be a misconception.
Misconceptions differ from mistakes. Although students may recognize a mistake once they are
corrected, students may not understand or even accept why their misconception is an incorrect
view. It has been well documented that children have their own views about scientific
phenomena even after instruction (Bar, 1989; Bar, Zinn, Goldmuntz & Sneider, 1994; Pine,
Messer & St. John, 2001). It has also been well documented that misconceptions generally do
not develop arbitrarily, but are based on actual observations of phenomena (Benson, Wittrock &
Baur, 1993; Ross & Shuell, 1993. However, some misconceptions are a likely product of the
developmental stage of the learner (Stavy & Satchel, 1985). Even though their teachers and
textbooks provide a clear rational and argument for a scientific concept, if the students’ cognitive
abilities are not mature enough to understand them the student will be unable to understand the