Hello there! I've been visiting Classical Magnet School and Hartford Public High School Nursing Academy in Hartford, CT for my inquiry and internship duties. Humans try to formulate explanations of natural phenomena, and these notions are then filed in our brains for years to come. Oftentimes, these notions are based on faulty reasoning and conflict with the views and beliefs of scientists. For example, a film entitled A Private Universe interviewed several Harvard seniors on the reason for season changes. Many of these students confidently explained that the elliptical orbit of Earth made Earth warmer as it came within close proximity of the sun. However, this is not the true scientific explanation of the season phenomena. Rather, we experience season changes as a result of the Earth’s rotation on an axial tilt. This tilt causes the different hemispheres to be at different angles to the sun at different times of the year (A Private Universe, 1988). Scientists and educators alike refer to these differing concepts as misconceptions, and they are created and reinforced throughout one’s lifetime. In order for successful learning to occur in a science classroom, it is essential to break the misconception cycle by having students question or challenge their preexisting views of the world by providing intelligible, plausible evidence for a new idea (Kyle, 1989). To do so, a constructivist approach to learning must be adopted. The teacher must first “identify those misconceptions, provide a forum for students to confront them, and then help students reconstruct and internalize their knowledge, based on scientific models” (Gooding, 2011, p. 36). One of the many intervention strategies used to break down students’ misconceptions is a type of science text called a refutational text.
Science texts have been and continue to be an important learning medium in the classroom. Science texts can be broken down into two main categories: expository and refutational. Expository texts are primarily used to inform the reader who lacks prior knowledge on the subject. Oftentimes, this information is presented in the form of a series of facts, and research has shown that this format is challenging for the reader to connect similar ideas (Diakidoy, 2003). On the other hand, research has shown that the “refutational text structure, where a prevalent misconception was acknowledged and directly refuted by preceding or following text information was more effective…than expository text which simply presented the new information” (Diakidoy, 2003, p. 337).
Despite the promising effects of refutational texts on students’ learning, the strategy has not been adopted in many science classrooms. Therefore, the purpose of this my inquiry project is to investigate the presence of student misconceptions in a science classroom and the instructional methods used by the teacher to address these misconceptions through student and teacher surveys as well as teacher interviews. I will also be analyzing the use of refutational texts to debunk student misconceptions in a science classroom at Classical Magnet School and Hartford Public High School Nursing Academy.
Post #2 on 2/18/12:
I have spent this last week doing ridiculous amounts of literature review on teacher awareness of student misconceptions. To be completely honest, there is not a lot of literature out there on the topic, particularly in the subjects of chemistry and biology. I did manage to find some articles including "Ratio: Raising Awareness on Children's Thinking" by Misailidou and Williams. And interestingly enough, I found an editorial by Dr. John Settlage in the Journal of Science Teacher Education entitled, "Prognosis for Misconceptions Research". He gave an informal survey to science teacher veterans and touched upon the idea of incorporating misconceptions into their student instruction. Furthermore, I also found a dissertation titled, "An Investigation into Teacher and Student Teacher Confidence in Their Own Understanding and Abilities to Teach Science and Technology in Primary Schools in Northern Ireland". This article provided some examples of questions they used to assess teacher's misconceptions which I will reference when I am developing my own survey.
I am starting to formulate ideas that I will ask on my initial survey to teachers regarding their awareness of misconceptions in a science classroom and how they address these misconceptions. I am debating on whether I should ask specific misconception problems to see if teachers themselves have these misconceptions and then ask the instructional strategies they would use to address this misconception. If I followed this format, the product would be more like a questionaire with open-ended questions and not a survey. I also want to address the use of refutational texts and get a feel for whether the teachers would use this instructional strategy to promote conceptual change in students. I would also ask the teachers to delve into the advantages and disadvantages of using refutaitonal texts.
I have acquired two more biology teachers in my sample pool after visiting the Hartford Public High School Nursing Academy. This puts my sample population at 4 teachers. I definitely need to increase that, and I am debating on whether to recruit the chemistry and physics teacher at the Nursing Academy and Classical Magnet School as well. I was also thinking about getting the East Hartford science department involved. I am unsure whether I should e-mail the department chair or if I should wait to be introduced.
My visit to Hartford Public High School Nursing Academy was an eye-opener to say the least. The school environment is completely different than that at Classical Magnet School, which is in Hartford as well. Granted, I see that one is a public school and the other is a magnet school, but the differences in student motivation are astounding. To begin the day, the biology teacher only had 5 of her 20 enrolled students present in block 1. Several students came late, and one late student then proceeded to disrespect the biology teacher with a ridiculous attitude. The student was escorted out by the security guard. Come to find out, this situation is a daily occurrence and the individual has a 12% average in the class. Why even show up to school if you have a 12% average (which is consistent across all of the student's classes)? I questioned the biology teacher about the attendance rate of the rest of her students and the percentage of motivation she sees from them. She said out of the 60 students she has, approximately 10 to 12 do the work and enjoy the class. She also said that on average, students miss approximately 25 days of school. I did not ask whether that was number was for each term. Regardless, how can one teach and be successful if no students ever show up? These kids are failing because they have no desire to attend school! So, Gina and I have decided to investigate the reasons why attendance is such a problem at the Nursing Academy and not Classical. What are the different attitudes from students at each of the schools? Does one have an attendance policy that is enforced and not the other? Or is this lack of attendance due to the fact that the public schools seem to prepare their students less for science instruction than magnet schools? What I saw at the school was astonishing, and I am very intrigued to start my internship answering these questions.
Post #3 on 03/06/12:
This week begins the start of CAPT testing, so visits to both Classical Magnet School and Hartford Public Nursing Academy are limited to a period of two in the afternoon. I will be sending out the survey I created regarding teacher awareness of misconceptions by the end of this week. The survey consists of questions that teachers will answer on a Likert-scale as well as three open-ended questions that pertain to the advantages and disadvantages of using refutational texts in the classroom. I have only recruited four teachers for my survey so far. Many other science teachers that I have talked to are hesitant because, "surveys created by graduate students tend to not be very good." I have gotten in touch with graduate students present at East Hartford High School to schedule a visit. I am hoping to observe several classrooms there, and I also hope to recruit more teachers for the survey. Bigger sample sizes are better!
Once I send out the surveys, I will be working collaboratively with another graduate student, Gina, to create pre-tests to give to students in three biology classes to identify misconceptions they have in regards to evolution and genetics. This pre-test will be given as a bellringer, and it should only take students approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete. I can give all pre-tests in one school day to separate classes. I am hoping to have a student sample size of 50 students. Once I receive the pre-tests, a refutational text will be developed that aims to conceptually change one of the misconceptions that was discovered in the pre-test. This will be accompanied with a literacy strategy such as "Think, Pair, Share" or group discussions to determine why students think the way they do as well as receive verbal feedback of the use of refutational texts. A post-test will then be given to see if refutational texts were successful in changing student's conceptions of evolution and genetics. The refutaitonal texts and post-test will take one class period at the most.
I had the opportunity to meet with the principal at Hartford Public Nursing Academy, Mr. Dave Chambers. He offered some ideas for possible strategies to use in the classrooms to determine misconceptions. He suggested giving a group of students a common misconception, and annotating their conversation discussing whether this preconception was right or wrong. He also suggested to utilize the Smartboard clickers software to administer the pre- and post-tests. However, he did not mention using refutational texts to modify these misconceptions once they were discovered. Instead, he said to put the correct answer to the pre- and post-test questions once student answers had been received, and ask various questions that help determine how students think, why they think the way that they do, and when did they learn certain incorrect concepts. Furthermore, Mr. Chambers offered the idea of tutoring students that retained misconceptions after the discussion and clicker usage. Again, Mr. Chambers did not seem to include my idea of refutational texts as an intervention strategy to correct misconceptions in any of his suggestions. We had to end the meeting abruptly, so I am curious as to whether he did not like the refutational text strategy and the reasons behind not liking it. Hartford Public is an urban environment, and many students are not on an on-grade reading level. Perhaps he was worried that reading would be too difficult a strategy to implement because of this lack of literacy skills. I, too, have thought of this obstacle. To accomodate all student reading abilities, I will create two refutational texts at different reading levels. One refutational text will be written at a sixth grade level and the other will be written at a ninth grade reading level.
Post #4 on 03/17/12:
Well good news, everyone! I have completed collecting data from Hartford Public. My sample size was 79 students (out of a possible 120), which is pretty good considering the attendance rate is pretty bad at the school. Ms. Raynor, one of the biology teachers, gave my pre-test on evolution on Friday, March 10th. CAPT testing has been going on for the past 2 weeks so timing has been absolutely crazy for getting in to do the refutational text lesson. I was able to do two blocks on Monday, March 12th and the other two blocks on Wednesday, March 14th. Most of the blocks were combined with the other biology teacher's, Ms. Stroili, students.
Overall, the lesson was a success. The students weren't keen on the idea of reading and annotating the text. However, once myself and the other teachers began engaging them in conversation, they were more apt to respond. I administered a paper post-test, and I also had students respond with Smartboard clickers to collect the number of responses. I also ended up writing three different refutational texts: one at the 11th grade reading level, one at the 8th grade reading level, and one at the 5/6th grade reading level. I also translated the 8th grade reading level into spanish for some ELL students. Two blocks of students had 60% population of IEPs, and I realized that I would have needed to write a refutational text on a 1st or 2nd grade reading level. I found it nearly impossible to write a nonfiction text on evolution at that level. Also, two questions on the pre-test and post-test were not answered by reading the text. Ms. Raynor and Ms. Stroili both mentioned this. Although those questions address the misconception that humans evolved from apes, I did not directly answer those questions verbatim in the text. This is a possible thing to improve for future use.
Post #5 on 04/10/12:
The
results collected from the surveys given to science teachers at Hartford Public
Nursing Academy and Classical Magnet School showed that the majority of
participants were aware that students entered class with preexisting knowledge,
and they understood that this knowledge could be erroneous or illogical in
comparison to actual science concepts. One participant strongly disagreed
with the statement that they were aware of a student’s background
knowledge. Many of the participants expressed confidence in their ability
to renounce student misconceptions after instruction addressing these
misconceptions was given. Furthermore, all participants believed literacy
skills, particularly reading skills, were essential for success in a science
classroom, and these skills were regularly integrated into the curriculum.
In regards to the strategies used by teachers to address student
misconceptions, the majority of the participants used pre-tests in the
beginning of a new unit to determine the presence of student misconceptions on
a regular basis. These participants also frequently used graphic organizers
and questioning techniques to uncover misconceptions the students may
hold. A few of the participants commonly created lessons that
consciously addressed student preconceptions of science topics. All
participants used demonstrations to help promote conceptual change in students;
however, it should be noted that not all participants allowed students to
reflect on their new understandings. All participants, except one,
incorporated the reading and analysis of science texts as a means to contest student
preconceptions.
Several advantages to the use of a refutational text to alter
student misconceptions were stated in the open-ended portion of the
survey. Many of the participants discussed the benefit of having
students practice reading skills. Furthermore, the fact that a
refutational text clearly states the misconception and provides evidence to
support a correct explanation was seen as a plus because many students struggle
with verbalizing their own misconceptions and rarely receive support from the
text. A refutational text could possibly force or guide
students to re-evaluate their existing beliefs. The wide variety of
reading abilities possessed by students was a huge concern of the
participants. They discussed the fact that students who are
English-Language Learners or students who struggle with reading text may not
grasp the concepts presented in the text, and as a result, lesson engagement is
minimal. Furthermore, a few of the participants stated that a
refutational text would only be feasible after a month or so has passed in the
school year. This would allow the teacher enough time to become
familiar with the skill sets of their students. However despite
these apprehensions, five of the six participants would be willing to use the refutational
text in their classroom with some modifications. One participant
stated that they would use the refutational text but attach a reflective piece
to it. Another participant stated they would use this as an activity
during co-taught classes in which an extra adult would be present to sit and
break down meanings of sentences to students who need the help.
Before the refutational text
intervention, 36.59% of general biology students had the misconception that
humans evolved from apes based on the responses from question 1 on the
pre-test. The refutational text decreased the number of students
with this misconception to 13.33%, a difference of 23%. Pre-tests
for the honors biology students showed 15.38% of students had the
misconception. The post-test following the refutational text
intervention showed 0% of students retained the misconception.
Before the refutational text
intervention, 29.27% of general biology students showed evidence of this
misconception based on responses from question 2 on the pre-test. The
refutational text decreased the number of students with this misconception by
approximately 9% to 20.00%. Pre-tests for the honors biology
students showed 15.38% of students had the misconception. One
student did not respond to this question on the pre-test. The
post-test following the refutational text intervention showed an increase of
students who answered false to 20.00%; however, the sample size did increase
and all students answered question 2.
Before the
refutational text intervention, 12.20% of general biology students showed
evidence of possessing the misconception where 21.95% did not based on the
responses to question 3 on the pre-test. The refutational text
intervention decreased the percentage of general biology students who responded
with answer 1 to 11.67% and increased the percentage of students who responded
with the correct answer to 33.33%. Pre-tests for the honors biology
students showed 15.38% of students responded with answer 1, the answer that
supports the misconception. Only 38.46% of students responded with
the correct answer 4. The post-test following the refutational text
intervention showed 6.67% of students retained the misconception whereas 86.67%
responded with answer 4.
Before the
refutational text intervention, 24.39% of general biology students showed
evidence of this misconception based on responses to question 4. 51.22%
of students responded with the correct answer. The refutational text
decreased the number of students with this misconception by approximately 5% to
20.00% and increased the percentage of correct responses to 65%. Pre-tests
for the honors biology students showed 23.08% of students had the
misconception. 61.54% of students responded with the correct
answer. The post-test following the refutational text intervention
showed a 17% decrease of students who retained the misconception. The
number of honors biology students that responded correctly increased
approximately 20% to 80%.
No comments:
Post a Comment