Blogs

Primary science subject knowledge and misconceptions

By Sarah Dagnell posted 02-09-2022 09:07

  
Within the theory of constructivism, learners build their understanding of the world through their own experiences and their reflections upon those experiences. These reflections are built upon an individual’s prior learning. If a new idea emerges which challenges an existing idea, then that idea will either be changed to fit the new information, or the new information will be disregarded as it’s deemed irrelevant.

Subsequently, children come to school with their own explanations of the world around them, and these may be different to accepted scientific explanation. As these alternative conceptions have been built to make sense of the world, they can be extremely resistant to change.

Children will invent rules to explain the patterns they see around them (C Harrison). At times this can be useful, however, sometimes these rules can lead to incorrect ideas and assumptions. For example, many children believe that the Moon is a light source, because this understanding fits with the patterns of explanation the children have constructed for themselves. The Moon is bright and lights up the Earth – this is what light sources do. Therefore, the Moon is a light source.

Malcolm Swan (2001) writes how, ‘Misconception is not wrong thinking but it is a concept in embryo or a local generalisation that the [student] has made. It may in fact be a natural stage of development.’

The subject of science relies on a deep understanding of technical vocabulary. We constantly introduce children to new words of which the meaning is either completely unfamiliar to them or is different to the everyday use of the term. For example, material, diet, and weight.

If we do not ensure children grasp the meaning of the required vocabulary, this can lead to many of the most common misconceptions children have in the primary science curriculum.

It is therefore essential that we are armed with a number of teaching strategies which enable us to identify, avoid and remedy misconceptions in the children we teach.

Careful questioning, using Concept Cartoons and Explorify activities are some strategies that can be used to elicit misconceptions. When done correctly, these methods create a safe space for children to share their ideas and challenge each other’s.

Using practical work to investigate a scientific question may challenge some incorrect preconceived ideas. For example, you may ask ‘what materials are magnetic?’. Children often believe that all metals are magnetic. This could be identified through making predictions and then challenging them by giving the children a selection of magnetic and non-magnetic metals to test.

As a leader of primary science, it is important that you are confident in the subject knowledge required so you can address misconceptions in the children you teach and those in colleagues. At STEM Learning, the Subject knowledge and leadership skills for new primary science leaders course provides you with specific, in-depth subject knowledge to deliver the primary science curriculum effectively and confidently. It opens your eyes to misconceptions that you may be harbouring (we do not know, what we do not know!) as well as developing strategies to elicit and challenge them in the classroom.

Book your place on the 'Subject knowledge and leadership skills for new primary science leaders' residential CPD course now.

Did you enjoy this blog? If so, scroll to the top and hit the 'Recommend' button!
5 comments
70 views

Related Content

Permalink

Comments

Jane Grubb
30-09-2022 15:46

Hi -  I agree with Jon, whilst I do understand the need for correct terms to be used in science however the term magnetism is understood by the majority of people to stand for ferromagnetism. 

I think the main trap that we want to avoid falling into is that children are learning any 'facts' from experiments.  The point of practical science is to engender a love of experimenting, testing ideas, observing and questioning.  It doesn't matter if children (or even grown up scientists) formulate theories from practical work which aren't correct, what matters is that they learn to test their ideas to see if they stand up to further investigation.   We don't expect children to be speaking in fully formed sentences with no grammatical errors when they are learning to speak, so why should we expect the same from them as scientists.  Insisting that they get the 'right' answer from practical work means not doing it as we all know that on many occasions the opposite to what is 'supposed to happen' actually does.  Science teaching should support children in changing their mind/ honing their ideas/ refining their understand as they develop it should not be a case of them understanding everything perfectly from their first encounter of a subject.

Maggie Beggs
03-09-2022 20:44

apologies for the typos

Maggie Beggs
03-09-2022 20:43

I have two completely unrelated comments. First it is possible to reinforce misconceptions using practical work so we need to think about what it is we want them to learn from practical.Skills are obviously developed by any practical but be ready to explain why a result does not fit the theoretical pattern. The problem of aluminuim and the reactivity series was raised in the communty today as well. I think the underlying lesson is make sure you understand the science before letting your children investigate or you wil be doing some explaining on the hoof! My second point relates to the idea that children build on their knowledge by accomodating new facts into their exisiting ideas of how the world works. A theory is only as good as the last fact that supports it and when you meet a new contradictory fact the theory needs modifying. Some children will struggle to let go of what they have previously been taught and so will struggle with contradictory facts. Under stress (and this applies to A level) students will return to earlier knowedge because it is more familiar and in a way comforting. As we expand their understanding the new facts need reinforcing to ensure that is what they remember not the earlier simple explanations.

Jon Tarrant
03-09-2022 14:14

Whilst I completely agree with the reality of magnetism, as expressed by Paul Treble, we have to begin somewhere when creating a base of knowledge upon which to build - and starting with ferromagnetism, shortened to "magnetism" isn't unreasonable. There are plenty of other areas in the physical sciences where we make similar simplifications in the interest of allowing students to grasp initial concepts. For example, we say that the Earth's period of rotation is 24 hours whereas in fact it is slightly shorter and the extra time (about four minutes) is required to allow for the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Adding the details is part of what progression in education is all about.

Paul Treble
03-09-2022 09:31

While I agree with your conclusion that 'As a leader of primary science, it is important that you are confident in the subject knowledge required so you can address misconceptions ....'. You have unfortunately fallen into a real elephant trap set by the national curriculum when it comes to magnetism! The problem is that there are different sorts of magnetism and the primary school curriculum focuses on ferromagnetism which is a type of magnetism only displayed by iron, cobalt and nickel. However, every element in the periodic table is either ferromagnetic, antiferromagnetic, diamagnetic or paramagnetic so children are correct when they say that all metals are magnetic. For a more detailed exposition try https://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/ferromagnetic/types.php. The national curriculum really should use the term ferromagnetism!