Children's Views on Science

7/29/2019 Children's Views on Science

1/23

Childrens Views of Science

Assignment One

Tarryn Fisher

21158408.


2/23

Section One

Determining Prior Knowledge: In teaching any subject, determining the students prior

knowledge before teaching is very important to effectively plan any and all units of teaching

and to ensure the content be taught to tailor the students learning needs (Kavanagh &

Sneider., 2007). When obtaining prior knowledge it is not only important to ask children

what their ideas are, but to ask them to provide you with evidence of how they know this to

be true, even if the idea they present is not a scientific concept (Skamp., 2007). This gives

you an indication of how they are thinking and what scientific and alternate concepts they

hold in their ideas. It is important to determine this prior knowledge through allowing the

children to express their ideas in hands-on activities, particularly for younger children as it

creates engagement and allows them to apply their knowledge in different situations

(Darling., 2012). Questioning the children and asking for evidence of why they believe

certain ideas can place them in a position where they need to examine their beliefs and reflect

upon their understanding of the concept, which may enable them to formulate their ideas and

possibly see situations where their ideas do not apply (Skamp., 2007).

Determining childrens prior knowledge is also advantageous as it allows identification of

areas where they may hold alternate, rather then scientific conceptions on a particular subject.

The use of hands-on activities is not only engaging for children but advantageous for

teachers, as many find it hard to predict what misconceptions their students may have

(Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). It is possible that alternate conceptions, particularly physics

related ones, are intuitively formed and therefore research into childrens priorknowledge of

scientific topics is vital to ensure that the childs educational instruction is related to their

knowledge and prior conceptions (Wilkening & Huber., 2002).

The science topic selected for this assignment was the topic of gravity. Two year 5 students,

Luke and Matthew (pseudonyms), both aged nine, were interviewed on this topic.


3/23

Section Two

Information on the Topic of Gravity: The topic of Gravity is one that is important to

children in their everyday life; they can identify it as the force which brings them back to

Earth when they jump with a skipping rope or on a trampoline (Darling., 2012). A force is

a push or a full which can cause an object to move, stop, change direction or change speed

(Darling., 2012). Gravity is thought of as a field force, as it does not contact the object it

acts upon, such as friction acting on an object would, instead it surrounds the object. (Skamp.,

2007). Scientifically, the idea of gravity is a fundamental aspect of physics, and is explored at

great depth through Newtons theory of gravity, and added to by Einsteins theory of

relativity, which is why it is a key area of learning in science throughout both primary and

high school years (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). The term gravity is not mentioned in the

Australian Curriculum: Science until year 7, however it is looked at from approximately year

2 in the physical sciences strand when investigating push and pull forces (ACARA.,

2012). In primary school, the term gravity is not necessarily the most important aspect for

students to learn, it is more important that they should learn that it is a pulling force that can

act on objects from a distance and can make things fall (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007).

Without looking at the concept in depth near to that of Newton or Einstein, gravity is a

pulling force; it pulls things towards the centre of the Earth (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007).

The force of gravity, or gravitational pull, is an invisible force such, as magnetism, but differs

in that gravitational pull is not as strong but can work over much longer, even infinite,

distances. This can be demonstrated by the fact that gravitational pull exists between planets

and stars over large distances within space (Woodford., 2004). However, it should be noted

that as the distance between the objects increases the gravitational pull decreases quickly

(Cain., 2009). Gravitational pull between planets and the Sun is one of the foundations of the

Solar System and one of the reasons that the Solar System stays in a particular shape, the


4/23

orbit of the planets around the Sun can be likened to that of a ball on a roulette wheel

spinning around the centre of gravity (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007).

Gravitational force is related to mass, the more mass something has the more gravitational

force it will exert, which is why the Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way around

(Woodford., 2004). Mass is the amount of matter within an object and never changes, as

opposed to an objects weight, which changes depending on the forces, such as gravitational

pull, acting on it (Allen., 2010). Although mass and weight are not the same, under a constant

gravitational force, such as that exerted on Earth, the weight of an object will be proportional

to its mass, the larger the mass the heavier it weighs ( Wilkening & Huber., 2002). For

example, one cubic metre of lead will weigh more than one cubic metre of aluminium, as it

has heavier particles and these particles are more tightly packed, giving it a larger mass, as

seen in Figure 1 (Allen., 2010).

The distance between objects will also influence the gravitational pull; the closer the objects

the stronger the pull (Woodford., 2004). Gravitational force is exerted by all objects, large

ones such as the gravitational pull the

Earth has to the people on it, or small ones,

such as the pull between two blocks of

metal (Woodford., 2004). In the case of

the two metal blocks, if they were on

Earth, although they have gravitational

pull, this force is overcome by the larger

pull that is the Earth pulling them to it

(Allen., 2010). On the Earth it is not only

objects which are pulled towards the

centre of the Earth, gravity also ensures

Figure 1: Two cubes of different metals will weigh

different amounts and have different masses, even

though they are the same size. In this case, as the

iron has more mass than the aluminium it would

have more gravitational pull than the aluminium. This

diagram was taken from Allen (2010) p 138.


5/23

that the Earths atmosphere does not escape (Nardelli, Saffin & Taylor., 2003). Although

gravitational pull draws people to the centre of the Earth, as you get further from the centre of

the Earth the pull decreases, for example at the top of Mt Everest there is 0.28% less gravity,

which although is small continues to decrease until there is 90% less gravity when at the

International Space Station (Cain., 2009). It is important to note that although the

gravitational pull decreases throughout the atmosphere, gravity is not caused by or related to

the atmosphere.

It was Isaac Newton who provided an explanation of gravity after he famously observed an

apple falling from a tree (Woodford., 2004). As previously explained, all objects have

gravitational pull, so in the case of the apple it is not only the apple being pulled to the Earth,

the apple is also exerting its own gravitational pull on the Earth, but in this case its pull is too

small to measure so it appears that the Earth is the only object with gravitational pull

(Woodford., 2004). This difference between the gravitational pull of a person for example, as

compared to that of the Earth means that a person can fall into the Earth due to the

gravitational pull of the Earth, but the reverse does not occur.

It is true that objects of different mass will have different gravitational force acting on them,

however this force acting on them does not increase the acceleration of the object when it is

falling, so if two items are dropped from the same height, they will land on the ground at the

same time (assuming that air resistance is not present) (Allen.,2010). This relates to another

force, that of inertia, so although there is more gravitational pull on the heavier object, it also

requires more energy to move it, and will still land at the same time as a lighter object

dropped from the same height, as seen in Figure 2 (Allen., 2010). The pull of gravity towards

the centre of the Earth on people means that we are constantly falling towards the centre of

the Earth, however the Earths surface keeps us from continual free fall into the Earths

centre (Cain., 2009).


6/23

Sports are a good example of the

different forces acting upon people

due to gravity (Nardelli, Saffin &

Taylor., 2003) and one way in

which gravity can be explained to

students in younger grades.

Gravity is present in many

sporting activities such as

skydiving, which involves free

fall, to rock climbing (moving up

against the force of gravity), to

activities such as surfing, which

requires balance between gravity

and other forces. An example is

the gravitational pull on the surfer onto the board equalling the forces such as buoyancy

pushing up on the board and surfer, which means the surfer is able to balance and stay on the

board (Nardelli, Saffin & Taylor., 2003).

Section Three

Alternate Conceptions Relating to Gravity: Alternate conceptions can perpetuate from a

number of sources such as poor teaching, intuitive assumptions, mis-representation of a

scientific concept in the community or even the students mis-understanding a scientific

concept and formulating their own conceptions about how things happen (Skamp., 2007).

There are numerous alternate conceptions related to physics based concepts such as gravity.

Some alternate conceptions in relation to gravity are; (1) there is no gravity on the Moon, (2)

Figure 2: objects with a different mass will still land

simultaneously. There is more gravity acing on the heavier

object, but it also takes more force to make it move, which

balances out and means that the objects of different mass will

fall at the same time and lad simultaneously (provided that isno air resistance and they are dropped from the same height.

The diagram was taken from Allen (2010) p124.


7/23

gravity is part of the Earths atmosphere, (3) heavier objects fall faster than light objects from

the same height, (4) objects have more gravity on them when they are dropped from a higher

height, and (5) objects at rest have no gravity acting upon them.

The alternate conception that there is no gravity on the Moon links with another alternate

conception that gravity is part of the Earths atmosphere, gravitational pull comes from the

atmosphere and therefore finishes at the surface of the Earth (Gilbert & Watts., 1983). This

relates to gravity on the Moon because if the learner believes that gravitational pull is caused

by the atmosphere then, as the Moon has no atmosphere, it therefore also has no gravity

(Gilbert & Watts., 1983). The alternate conception that there is no gravity on the Moon has

perpetuated through the many images of weightlessness in space provided through science

fiction films and other popular culture outlets that children may be exposed to such as books

and television shows (Allen., 2010). Although popular culture suggests otherwise, there is

gravity on the Moon, however as the properties of mass and gravitational force are related

and the Moons mass is less than the Earths the gravitational pull is therefore less. The Moon

has only 17% of the mass of the Earth, which means it has only 17% of the same

gravitational pull at its surface (Allen., 2010). As there is less gravitational pull on astronauts

on the Moon, they are able to jump higher and bound further than they are able to on Earth,

which may be one of the reasons for the idea that there is no gravity on the Moon, as the

astronauts are not seen to be pulled to the surface in the same way they do on Earth (Allen.,

2010).

Historically, it was thought by philosophers such as Aristotle that the speed at which

something falls is proportional to its weight (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). This has been

proved scientifically incorrect, but is still often held as an alternate conception relating to

gravity and free-fall (Allen., 2010). Studies into students in a US first-year college physics

degree showed that 4 out of 5 students, even at tertiary level of study and having taken


8/23

physics at high school, still held this alternate conception (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). The

widespread belief and tenacity with which this conception perseveres, demonstrates why it is

important to teach these conceptions scientifically in primary school, rather than allow the

alternate conception to predominate throughout schooling. This particular alternate

conception is held because it appears that the heavier of the two items being dropped has

more gravity acting upon its larger mass (Allen., 2010). A learner who holds this conception

is likely to believe that as an object increases in mass the amount of gravity acting on it also

increases, which affects its acceleration (Allen., 2010). This idea, that heavier object will

have more gravity acting upon it is scientifically correct, however it also requires more

energy to make it move, which means these forces cancel each other out, resulting in it

landing at the same time to the lighter object (Naylor and Keogh., 2000). It is also important

to note that in some cases the opposite alternate conception is held, that lighter objects, such

as a feather, will fall quicker as they have less air resistance when falling (Allen., 2010).

The alternate conception that objects dropped from a higher height have more gravity acting

on them than objects dropped from lower heights comes from stories such as if one drops a

coin from the top of a skyscraper and it hit someone it would kill them (Allen., 2010). The

conception that there is more gravity acting on objects if they are higher in the Earths

atmosphere, which therefore gives them more force when dropped is incorrect, as it is

actually the weight of the object which causes the acceleration and force with which the

object lands (Allen, 2010). Scientifically, the higher and further out of Earths atmosphere

you get the less you weigh (for example if you are on an aeroplane you weigh less), which is

the opposite of what people with the alternate conception believe (Allen., 2010).

The final alternate conception in this paper is that objects at rest have no forces acting upon

them. Students of high school age (12-17) were interviewed on this topic and were found to

hold this alternate conception, that objects working had more gravity acting upon them than


9/23

those at rest (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). It was also found through a different study run by

Palmer (2001) (as sited in Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007), that 34% of students in year 6 do not

believe that gravity acts upon stationary objects (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). This

conception develops through children thinking of a force as something which makes things

move, which is not always the case (Darling., 2012).

Section Four

Selection of Children: The children were selected to be interviewed initially because they

were known to one of the interviewers and therefore easy to contact and arrange to interview.

The children were also selected because as Kavanagh & Sneider (2007) suggests, children

between the ages of approximately 9-13 begin to see concepts such as falling not only

related to the fact that there is nothing supporting the object, or that it is simply heavy, but

begin to incorporate the idea of gravity as an unseen force to explain why things fall. Both

the boys interviewed were 9 years old and fell into this age category, so it was a good

opportunity to see how they viewed concepts such as gravity.

Ethical Issues: Historically, research in many areas including social sciences, where children

have been involved, has not always been to the advantage of the child, but to the advantage of

the researcher(s) involved (Harcourt & Conroy, 2005). The idea that children are citizens and

able to willingly participate in research of their own consent is a recent recognition point in

child-related research, one that has come about after the United Nations Convention on the

Rights of the Child in 1989 (Einsrsdottir., 2009). As part of the rights of the child the consent,

or informed assent in the case of children, is of key importance when engaging with children

in ethical research, as participants should have the right to decide whether they would like to

participate or not (Harcourt & Conroy, 2005) . This choice to participate provides children


10/23

with the feeling that their knowledge and ideas are valid and important, which can lead to

information gathered from the research interview being of a high quality (Harcourt & Conroy

2005). The ethical issues involved with interviewing children for research purposes include

confidentiality (that information or identity of the participant will not be revealed for any

purposes other than those agreed to) (Einsrsdottir., 2009), that participants feel as though they

can pull out at any time, and that they dont have to give a particular answerdue to the power

relationship between the (adult) interviewer and the child. The interviews carried out in this

research abided by these ethical rules, and as in Einsrsdottir (2009), as well as the childs own

written informed consent, and the consent of their parents, the children were reminded prior

to the start of the interview that they had the right to not answer a question or to terminate the

interview at any time. Research using childrens ideas and knowledge are used as the basis of

curriculum and other informational documents in education, and to keep this aspect of

educational research, childrens participation in research must be voluntary and the purpose

of the research must be known to the child (Harcourt & Conroy 2005).

To put Luke and Matthew at ease in this interview situation we chose to interview them both

on the same afternoon, so they both experienced the interviews at a similar time and also at

the same place. The interviews were conducted after school time and afternoon tea was

provided for the children to make them feel comfortable. Ensuring the child feels comfortable

in the surrounding environment is important when interviewing children as, unlike adults,

they often do not know what to expect in an interview situation (Einsrsdottir., 2009). One of

the interviewers was already well known to the students; however the other interviewer was

introduced in an informal manner while afternoon tea was being served so the children felt

comfortable in the presence of both interviewers. Interviewing children in a well-known

environment to them and having a familiar person in the interviews are similar to some of the

methods used and suggested in Einsrsdottir (2009) to ensure that children feel safe and


11/23

empowered to share their knowledge in an interview situation. The interview was conducted

in a hands-on manner, so that the children did not feel like it was a quiz. There were no

written questions, only drawing and reading (as well as the questions being read aloud by the

interviewer to the students), so that if the student had weak reading or writing skills they were

still able to express themselves. This is similar to methods used in Harcourt & Coroy (2005),

as they allowed for the children to choose less-conventional methods of expressing

themselves (other than reading and writing) so that they were participants rather than

subjects in the research. Sorting and drawing were used in this interview to provide hard

evidence of the childrens thoughts, and to provide activities for them to engage with and

actively participate in.

Interview Process: The interview ran for approximately 15 minutes with each child, with the

child and two interviewers present. One interviewer interacted with the child and asked

questions, while the other took notes and photographs of the interview for recording

purposes. The children were asked general questions about gravity and what they

understood, then questions relating to particular areas where misconceptions are commonly

held. Each area was examined differently, for example when being asked about gravity acting

on falling objects the child was asked to respond to the concept cartoon presented of two

bungy jumpers (cartoon fromNaylor and Keogh., 2000). Follow up questions such as why?

orhow? were often asked to clarify the childrens responses and allow them to display their

knowledge. This concept also involved a physical sort where the children were asked to sort

pictures of inanimate objects into which would fall faster or slower when dropped from a

particular height. When asking this question the interviewers made sure to provide children

with the option to put the objects in a row if they thought they would all land at the same


12/23

time, so as not to bias the answers by suggesting to the children that there was a fast/slow

gradient for these objects.

When looking at the idea of gravity on the Moon the children were first asked for their

knowledge of gravity on the moon and were then shown a clip on YouTube of astronauts on

the Moon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzYblYVUFk). The children were asked

questions about how the astronauts moved, the forces acting upon them and how they stayed

on the Moon. The children were then asked about the forces acting upon them in the room

right now; were there the same forces/gravity acting on them as on the book on the table or

the rug on the floor?

The most interactive part of the interview related to asking children to explain the gravity

acting upon a tennis ball when dropped from different heights. The children dropped a tennis

ball close to the floor, then from standing height, from the top of a chair and then off a

balcony and were asked to explain the gravity acting upon the tennis ball and how it

compared from the different heights.

To finish off the interview the students were asked to draw a picture of the Earth and to draw

arrows in the direction that a tennis ball would go if they dropped it from different sides of

the Earth, similar to the task given to year 3 and 6 students in research by Tao, Oliver and

Venville (2012).

Results and Interpretation: Both students showed a mixture of alternate and scientific

conceptions across different areas of the interview (Table 1). While Luke was steadfast and

confident in his answers, when Matthew was answering he showed evidence of cognitive

conflict with what he thought to be true but how that could be true based on what he knows,

which caused him to second-guess his ideas and change his mind as he thought of new

evidence. For example, when talking about gravity on the Moon, Matthew said that there was
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzYblYVUFkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzYblYVUFkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzYblYVUFkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzYblYVUFk


13/23

no gravity in space, but then later, when describing how the astronaut stays on the Moon,

changed his mind and said that there is a little bit of gravity (see notes in Appendix 1.1).

Both Luke and Matthew initially possessed the alternate conception that there was no gravity

on the Moon, and gave some form of astronauts clothes (boots, belt), which stopped the

astronaut from floating away. Even after being presented with the footage of the astronaut

walking on the moon and coming back down Lukes alternate conception was unchanged, he

still said it was the boots bringing the astronaut down, but as previously mentioned, when the

Concept explored Luke Matthew

What is Gravity? A force, keeps things on the

ground and stops everything from

floating. All around the Earth but

not found anywhere else.

Gravity pulls you down towards the

Earth, it is all around the Earth and

acts on all things. If there was no

gravity then everything, even the

ocean, would be floating.

Free fall of objects

(refer to Figure 3 and 4)

Small objects go faster and larger

ones go slower. Two Bungy

jumpers would go at the same

speed. The heavier bungy jumper

would go further down.

Serious consideration to the topic,

re-thought answers to the

question. Larger objects go faster,

the large jumper would go further

and faster.

Gravity on the Moon Adamant that there was no

gravity on the moon. The

astronaut has heavy boots to

keep him coming back down to

surface of the moon. The

bouncing walk of the astronaut is

because there is no gravity.

Space has no gravity, which is why

you float in space. After careful

consideration he dicided that there

is a little bt of gravity on the moon

and that astronauts need more

weight to keep them on the

surface, as there is less gravity, that

is what the space belt does for an

astronaut.

Gravity at different heights There is more gravity acting on

the ball the higher you drop it

from. This links in with the idea of

the free fall, as Luke mentioned

that the ball falls faster the higher

it is dropped from.

Identified that gravity is pulling the

ball down towards the Earth. Holds

alternate conception that as it goes

higher there is more gravity acting

on it. Matthew mentions that the

ball falls faster at a lower height.

Gravity on resting objects Understands that the same

gravity is acting on him, as well as

other objects and large structures

such as houses.

Still developing understanding of

this concept, had cognitive conflict

with this idea and kept changing his

answer as he thought of different

examples.

Table 1: A summary of notes taken in the interview showing both Luke and Mathews responses to

questions asked and their ideas relating to the gravity concepts explored.


14/23

clip was shown to Matthew he changed his mind about gravity on the Moon, saying that there

was a little bit of gravity to bring the astronaut down again (Table 1). He then followed this

up by saying that if there was less gravity the heaviness of the astronauts belt would be

needed to bring him back to the surface of the Moon, the belts weight was to compensate for

less gravitational pull. These conflicting ideas, and Matthews change in opinion, suggests he

is slightly confused about the topic, as his realising that there must be gravity on the Moon to

bring the astronaut down conflicted with his previous idea that there was no gravity at all.

Both Luke and Matthew held the alternate conception that larger objects would fall faster as

when presented with a sort of random objects both boys ranked objects which they thought

would fall faster or slower, and although they both said that particular objects would fall at

the same time, they did not mention that all objects would land at the same time (Figures 3

and 4). In this area the boys sorted objects differently, Matthew into a linear progression of

items fastest to slowest, based largely on the size of the objects (notes in Table 1 and Figure

3), while Luke chose to sort into two categories, slower and faster, choosing not to

differentiate within these categories (Figure 4). This may have indicated that Luke, rather

than believing that each item had an individual speed at which it fell and would land,

believed closer to the scientific concept, that in fact at least some of these objects would land

simultaneously, as his categories indicate that all of these objects within each group would

land at the same time. To further illustrate this point, when presented with the concept

cartoon from Naylor and Keogh (2000) of two bungy jumpers (a large and a small one) and

asked who would fall faster, Matthew said that the larger person would fall faster (Appendix

1.1), but Luke said that they would fall at the same time (Appendix1.2). Lukes choice that

the two jumpers would fall at the same time does not align completely with his sort of

inanimate objects (Figure 3), so it is possible that his conception of gravity acting upon

objects changes in relation to the context in which it is presented. It is important to note that


15/23

in this activity both boys also selected the third

option, that the heavier person would go down further

on their bungy cord, which is in fact scientifically

correct (Naylor & Keogh., 2000).

Both Luke and Matthew held the alternate conception

relating to dropping a tennis ball from different

heights, both of them saying that if dropped from a

higher point there is more gravity acting on the tennis

ball.

When asked about whether or not gravity was acting

on objects and themselves at the time of the interview Luke demonstrated that he held the

scientific conception that forces do act on stationary objects, rather than the alternate

conception. Luke told that gravity was acting upon him at that time, and even went so far as

to say that gravity was acting on him the same as on the book on the table, or even the house

on the ground (Table 1). Matthew was not as

confident in his understanding of this topic (Table

1). When initially discussing gravity in general he

had stated that it acts on everything, however when

it came to making the distinction between gravity

working on objects as rest compared to working

objects he was not able to state whether or not

gravity acted on all of the objects and changed his

mind many times as he continued to think about

this.

When asked to draw where the tennis ball would go

Figure 4: Lukes sort of how fast

random objects would fall; he has

sorted them into 2 groups, faster and

slower.

Figure 3 : The order which Matthew

sorted random objects based upon

how fast he thought they would fall

when dropped.


16/23

when dropped in terms of them on the Earth Matthews drawing demonstrated that he

understood that gravity was not only in the atmosphere, but that it pulled the ball to the centre

of the Earth, from no matter where on Earth the ball was dropped (Appendix 1.1). Lukes

response to this question did not demonstrate this scientific idea, rather the alternate

conception, as his drawing of the figure at the bottom of the Earth showed the ball dropping

down, away from the surface of the Earth, which suggests that his understanding of gravity

is that it pulls things down (Appendix 1.2).

Section Five

Comparison to the literature: The alternate conception held by the Luke and Matthew in

relation to how astronauts stay on the Moon appears to be consistent with many childrens

beliefs that astronauts have some item of clothing/equipment (such as shoes or a belt) which

keep them from floating away from the surface of the Moon. A British study asked similar

questions to students about gravity acting on the Moon and one of the responses by a 12 year

old boy was almost identical to that given by Luke in the interview; that astronauts have

heavy boots which would prevent them from floating off into space (Kavanagh & Sneider.,

2007). This response has also been seen in many adults, and even in some teachers who have

been interviewed on this subject, which shows how widespread this alternate conception is

(Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007).

The difficulty Luke had with the drawing activity, where a tennis ball would go if dropped

straight down, is not an uncommon difficulty for students, as it can be hard for children to

relate the ground they stand on as part of the Earth as a whole (Gilbert & Watts., 1983).

When comparing Matthews and Lukes responses to this question, Matthew had a better

awareness of the surface of the earth being part of the Earth as a whole, and he also identified

that the pull of gravity was not that of the atmosphere, but of the core of the Earth. In


17/23

comparison, Lukes drawing suggested he did not hold these understandings and held the

alternate conception that gravity does not come from the Earths centre, and that the

atmosphere and gravity are linked, which is a common alternate conception held among

children (Gilbert & Watts., 1983). In studies by Tao, Oliven and Venville (2012), when

students in year 6 were asked to complete this drawing task, the majority of students

answered similarly to Luke, they did not mention gravity, and answered that the ball would

fall to the ground. This indicates that Lukes conceptions are similar to many children of his

age and he may not have considered the effect of gravity on the ball, or that he does not hold

the scientific understanding that gravity is from the centre of the Earth. He instead subscribes

more to the alternate conception that gravity is found in the atmosphere. Matthews response

to this question, having the scientific understanding that the ball would go to the centre of the

Earth, was a response given by only four of the eighteen year 6 students interviewed in Tao,

Oliver and Venville (2012). Although his response is a more scientific conceptualisation of

what is happening, it is clearly a less commonly held idea among students his age.

Luke held the correct scientific understanding that objects at rest do have forces, including

gravitational pull, acting on them. As previously mentioned this concept is not always an

obvious one for children to grasp, and 34% of students in year 6 were found to hold the

alternate conception that objects at rest are not being acted on by gravity (Palmer, 2001, as

cited in Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). Matthew still appeared to be one of this 34% of

students who did not yet distinguish between gravity pulling on all objects as compared to

just objects which are working.

Section Six

Rationale for teaching: It has been seen that alternate conceptions can persist, studies in

Portugal of students after 4 years of a physics course showed that many still believed that


18/23

larger objects would free-fall faster because they were heavier, sharing these beliefs with year

10 students who had had no formal teaching in this area (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). These

university students believed these conceptions so strongly that they could provide

mathematical equations which they believed proved their alternate conception (Kavanagh &

Sneider., 2007). In teaching concepts where alternate conceptions are held two different

methods can be used, the evolutionary method, where small bits of knowledge are added by

the learner to encourage change over a period of time, and the revolutionary method, which

is more of a constructivist approach to learning and creates cognitive conflict to encourage re-

structuring of the learners ideas based upon new evidence (Gilbert & Watts., 1983). For

some students the idea of evolutionary change works best to change their conceptions about

a topic (Skamp., 2007). Providing time for evaluation, discussion and reflection, for example

in the form of a science journal and group and class discussion, can sometimes be more

effective in eliciting conceptual change for some students, although teachers do still need to

be aware if the alternate conception persists (Skamp., 2007).

It has been suggested that to cause conceptual change in students they need a supportive,

social environment where they feel safe to discuss what they think (and are encouraged to do

so), engaging activities, first-hand experiences which challenge their conceptions, and

encouragement to explain what they see and what they think is happening, after witnessing

the same concept in a variety of different situations (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007).

Constructivist methods, which challenge peoples pre-conceived thoughts and ideas on a

particular topic, do so by creating a conceptual conflict in the mind of the learner, as there is

conflict between what they believe to be correct and what they are experiencing (Kavanagh &

Sneider., 2007). Teaching in a constructivist way requires the students to reconstruct their

own ideas of a topic based upon new knowledge, rather than a teacher-transmitted telling of

new ideas and concepts (Skamp., 2007). This can sometimes be difficult, particularly with


19/23

younger students, as it requires metacognitive thought that may not be well developed in

younger children (Kuhn., 2002). The constructivist view of teaching however, has proved to

be effective when trying to alter an alternate conception held by a student, and has been seen

to be particularly effective in teaching about gravity (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). Not only

do students find a conflicting idea through this method of teaching, but they are required to

include these new conflicts and the evidence for them in restructuring their own ideas about a

concept (Gilbert & Watts., 1983).

Teaching to challenge alternate concepts, or to introduce new, scientific ones, is best taught

when applying concepts to real-world situations (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). An example

of a constructivist teaching activity to address the misconception of the heavier items falling

faster could be to set the situation of the bungee jumpers such as presenting the concept

cartoon by Naylor & Keogh (2000) and to then have everyone share their thoughts (and their

evidence for this), discussing this in groups providing why students think particular things

will happen. The next step is to actually perform the bungee activity in groups, using

heavy/light materials and elastic bands, then to provide them with other situations where they

can test this multiple times, and finally to return and see if the conception has changed based

on these experiences/ new information by a class or group discussion. Requiring children to

provide evidence for why they think something will happen encourages the metacognitive

thinking that will allow students to look at their own beliefs and reconstruct their own ideas

when presented with new evidence (Kuhn., 2002).

Time for sharing and discussion is of critical importance when addressing alternate

conceptions, as hands-on experiences are not always enough to prove or disprove something,

students need to be able to rationalise and communicate what it is that is happening in these

experiences (Driver., 1981). Through discussion, the teacher has the opportunity to talk with

the learner about what they have seen and how their ideas may have changed, which is


20/23

particularly important, especially because the learners conceptions may not have not

changed through the experiences. It is possible that even if new information and theories are

presented to the learner, if they are not done so in a way that allows the learner to experience

cognitive conflict and reconstruct their knowledge with their existing conceptions, then the

information may be disregarded or assimilated into the persisting alternate conception

(Kuhn., 2002).

Another gravity-related activity which could challenge students and make them apply their

understanding and provide evidence for their decisions would be to discuss what would

happen if there was no gravity (looking at the effect on buildings and natural formations such

as oceans and people). This reverse-application of the concept to students lives would be a

good starting point for discussion about gravity and how it affects students everyday lives.

Learners should not only have the opportunity to prove new ideas, but to disprove old ones

(Driver., 1981), which is another reason why multiple activities, with opportunities to prove,

disprove and apply ideas, will provide students with a solid understanding of scientific

concepts and will aim to disprove their alternate conceptions. If/once a correct scientific

conception is held by the student the teacher should re-enforce this knowledge by challenging

the students to apply their knowledge and see which situations their understandings apply and

where it does not (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007).


21/23

Reflection:

Reporting The assignment requirements were to design and perform an interview with two

children to determine their prior knowledge about gravity and then take this information to

compare their knowledge and any alternate conceptions they had to published literature.

Responding Although I have a science background I do not have a very good knowledge or

understanding of physics concepts, so this assignment gave me the opportunity to learn about

these concepts. The interview-style format including the ethics process prior to the interview

was also a new experience for me, one which I found sometimes challenging but overall

enjoyed and found to be very informative.

Relating The process of basing an assignment on information taken from in interview which

I co-designed was a new experience for me and one which taught me a lot about the interview

process, obtaining prior knowledge from children, and childrens knowledge about the topic

of gravity. Unfortunately after conducting the interviews it was found that the audio

recording did not work and we were unable to use any of the audio recordings for the

purposes of the assignment. Although this presented an unanticipated challenge, in designing

the interview we had planned to use a note-taker in addition to the audio recording. This

choice proved to be beneficial, as in the end the results from our interviews used in the

assignment were based upon the notes taken in the interview (seen in Appendix).

Identifying students prior knowledge before teaching is of great importance, because it

allows teachers to identify areas where students may need specific teaching and design

learning experiences which will do this (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). Simply assuming that a

student understands gravity because they can tell you that gravity keeps us on the Earth does

not mean that they do not hold alternate conceptions on the topic. This was seen through our

research, although both boys interviewed knew that gravity pulled us to the Earth they both

held different alternate conceptions as to different aspects of the topic.


22/23

The completion of this work highlighted that identification of these alternate conceptions

through determining students prior knowledge is of great importance in a primary science

classroom, as alternate conceptions can persist into adulthood. When researching the alternate

conceptions and reading about studies in which alternate conceptions have persisted into

adulthood, particularly in Kavangah & Sneider (2007), I was confronted by how influential

an alternate conception can be if left unchallenged. This has important implications for

learners throughout their lives and is the responsibility of the teacher to attempt to resolve the

alternate conceptions held by children. Obviously this can be a problem when teachers

themselves do not hold the correct scientific conception on the topic, as it has been seen that

they sometimes do not (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). When completing the theory aspect of

the assignment relating to the scientific concept of gravity, I discovered that I myself held

some of these alternate conceptions, and found some of the concepts relating to gravity to be

challenging, so although it is desirable that teachers possess all the correct scientific

conceptions, this may not always be the case.

Reconstructing When teaching I will apply the knowledge gained through this assignment in

terms of content, alternate conceptions and prior knowledge determination to create as many

opportunities as possible for my students to explore their conceptions and gather evidence to

enable them to reconstruct their own understanding. I will also attempt to make use of as

many different activities as possible to determine areas of alternate conception and prior

knowledge so that I am able to give students experiences to further their own learning and

develop their scientific thinking. This assignment has allowed me to realise that I also hold

some alternate conceptions. Although I cannot know everything about all the different areas

of science, as a teacher attempting to address alternate student conceptions, it is my

responsibility to ensure that I am providing students with correct information to help them

challenge their own conceptions and construct new ones.


23/23

References

Australian Curriculum and Reporting Agency (2012) Australian Curriculum: Science

Allen, M. (2010)Misconceptions in Primary Science. Maidenhead: Mc Graw-Hill Education.

Cain, F. (2009). Gravity of the Earth. The Universe Today.

http://www.universetoday.com/26775/gravity-of-the-earth/. (accessed 31 March 2013).

Darling, G. (2012) How does force affect motion? Science and Children. 50 (2).

Driver, R. (1981) Pupils alternative frameworks in science.European Journal of Science

Education. 3 (1). 93-101.

Einsrsdottir, J. (2007). Research with children: methodological and ethical challenges.

European Early Childhood Education. 15 (2). 197-211.

Gilbert, J., and Watts, D. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions:

changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education. 10 (1). 61-98.

Harcourt, D., and Conroy, H. (2005) Informed assent: ethics and processes when researching

with young children.Early Child Development and Care. 175 (6). 567-577.

Kuhn, D. (2002). What is Scientific Thinking and How Does it Develop? In Goswami, U.

(Ed).Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development. (349-370). doi:

10.1002/9780470996652

Nardelli,D., Saffin, P., and Taylor, P. (2003). Science Alive . Australia: Jacaranda. p 220,

231.

Naylor, S., and Keogh, B. (2000). Cartoon Concepts in Science Education. Cheshire, UK:

Millgate House Publishing.

Kavanagh, C., and Sneider, C. (2007). Learning about gravity I. Free fall: a guide for teachers

and curriculum developers.Astronomy Education Review. 5 (2).

Skamp, K. (2007) Teaching Primary Science Constructively. South Melbourne, Victoria:

Cengage Learning.

Tao, Y., Oliver, M., and Venville, G. (2012). Chinese and Australian childrens

understanding of the Earth: a cross cultural study of conceptual development. Cultural

Studies of Science Education.doi: 10.1007/s11422-012-9415-1

Wilkening, F., and Huber, S. (2002). Childrens Intuitive Physics. In Goswami, U. (Ed).

Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development. (349-370). doi:10.1002/9780470996652

Woodford, C. (2004)Routes of Science: Gravity. London: Brown Reference Group.
http://www.universetoday.com/26775/gravity-of-the-earth/http://www.universetoday.com/26775/gravity-of-the-earth/http://www.universetoday.com/26775/gravity-of-the-earth/

Documents

Children's Views on Science