the knowledge which underpins the misconception rather than treating only surface features of it. Some faulty knowledge may be susceptible to change and replacement. Strategies that may help include engendering cognitive conflict by, for instance, direct experience, practical demonstration and having the learner predict the outcome of an event. Activating prior knowledge and direct refutation of it, analogy and example are also known to help. Peer group discussion which airs misconceptions and allows an opportunity to notice inconsistencies and their limitations may help but can also spread misconceptions unless carefully guided. Since it is possible that misconceptions and new conceptions may co-exist, some attempt to displace the former from dominance may be needed. The aim is to have situations cue the new conception rather than the misconception. Clusters of strategies are likely to be more effective than one alone, and the process may take time.
Adeniyi, E.D. (1985) ‘Misconceptions of Selected Ecological Concepts Held by Some Nigerian Students’, Journal of Biological Education 19:311.
Aron, R.H., Francek, M.A., Nelson, B.D. and Bisard, W.J. (1994) ‘Atmospheric Misconceptions’, The Science Teacher, January: 31-3.
Auld, G.W., Achterberg, C.L., Getty, V.M. and Durrwachter, J.G. (1994) ‘Misconceptions About Fats and Cholesterol: Implications for Dietary Guidelines’, Ecology of Food and Nutrition 33:15-25.
Beveridge, M. (1985) ‘The Development of Young Children’s Understanding of the Process of Evaporation’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 55:84-90.
Bisard, W.J., Aron, R.H., Francek, M.A. and Nelson, B.D. (1994) ‘Assessing Selected Physical Science and Earth Science Misconceptions’, JCST, September-October: 38-42.
Brown, D.E. (1992) ‘Using Examples and Analogies to Remediate Misconceptions in Physics: Factors Influencing Conceptual Change’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29:17-34.
——(1993) ‘Refocusing Core Intuitions’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30: 1273-90.
(1994) ‘Facilitating Conceptual Change Using Analogies and Explanatory Models’, International Journal of Science Education 16:201-14.
Bruer, J.T. (1994) Schools of Thought, Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.
Caravito, S. and Hallden, O. (1994) ‘Re-Framing the Problem of Conceptual Change’, Learning and Instruction 4:89-111.
Carey, S. and Spelke, E. (1994) ‘Domain-Specific Knowledge and Conceptual Change’, in L.A. Hirschfeld and S.A. Gelman (eds), Mapping the Mind,
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 169-200.
Chi, M.T.H. (1992) ‘Conceptual Change Within and Across Ontological Categories’, in R. Giere (ed.), Cognitive Models of Science, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 129-60.
Clough, E.E. and Wood-Robinson, E. (1985) ‘Children’s Understanding of Inheritance’, Journal of Biological Education 19:304-10.
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Book title: Teaching for Understanding:What It Is and How to Do It.
Contributors: Douglas P. Newton - Author.
Place of publication: London.
Publication year: 2000.
Page number: 122.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may
not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.