What We Call Misconceptions

May Be Necessary
Stepping-Stones
Toward Making
Sense of the World

Todd Campbell, Christina Schwarz, and Mark Windschitl

T
he title of this article highlights a view of science volve asking students to talk about their thinking, to
learning uncommon in schools today—one in compare ideas, to test these ideas, and to see if they
which teachers and students view misconcep- can be used to explain natural events and processes.
tions as useful for making sense of the world (NRC These types of reasoning episodes occur often during
2008). What are misconceptions? Many consider them students’ engagement with science practices such as
to be student ideas inconsistent with science and some- arguing from evidence, constructing explanations, or
times hard to change. One example is the idea that “A revising models. Learning as sense-making is empha-
ball eventually stops after I push it because the ball sized in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS
‘holds force’ until the force runs out and stops.” While Lead States 2013).
we teachers may be tempted to quickly reject the idea In the past, when students have offered explana-
of objects “holding force,” simply telling students the tions inconsistent with science (such as ascribing the
idea is incorrect has little effect on their thinking. Such seasons to the changing distance between the Earth
ideas might, however, become part of a sense-making and the Sun), these ideas were seen as problematic
conversation that can support reasoning and learning. misconceptions needing to be “stamped out” by the
By sense-making, we simply mean working on and teacher with the correct ideas “stamped in.” In this
with ideas—both students’ ideas (including experi- strategy, the teacher generally asked students to re-
ences, language, and ways of knowing) and authorita- place the wrong idea with the correct one (such as
tive ideas in texts and other materials—in ways that the tilt of the Earth and its revolution around the Sun
help generate meaningful connections. This can in- causing the seasons). While providing accurate scien-

March 2016 69
tific information to students is useful, an early focus reason with different kinds of valuable knowledge to
on finding and fixing misconceptions can confuse stu- make sense of new situations and ideas. These resourc-
dents about why their own ideas aren’t accurate and es include partial understandings, nonstandard ideas,
fails to engage students in reasoning or idea revision. everyday experiences and ways of talking. In this view,
When their misconceptions are “corrected,” students students activate the ideas, experiences, or language
learn that their own ideas need to be replaced by other they think will help develop explanations or solve prob-
ideas that they don’t fully understand. When this hap- lems in the particular context (e.g., the social and phys-
pens, students will likely memorize official “school” ical environment) in which they find themselves. The
knowledge but fall back on their original ideas when NGSS uses this resources perspective and prioritizes
thinking about and explaining the outside world, since sense-making in advocating for a new vision for science
they naturally reason with their own real-world experi- teaching. The goal is for students to engage in science
ences, language, and rules for validating claims. and engineering practices as they use their developing
More recently, a resources perspective on learning understanding of disciplinary core ideas and crosscut-
has offered an alternative to repairing misconceptions ting concepts to make sense of phenomena or solve
(diSessa 1993; Hammer et al. 2005; Warren et al. 2001). problems. Science and engineering practices are tools
Rather than seeing student knowledge from a deficit the classroom community uses to recognize when an
view, where “wrong” answers need to be eliminated, idea is or isn’t productive in the context in which it is
a resources perspective emphasizes how students can being used.

FIGURE 1 Strategies for supporting student sense-making

Strategy Rationale/Explanation

Include some level of uncertainty in students’ Uncertainty is an important part of scientific activity
science activities rather than using activity to confirm that leads to engagement in reasoning (Manz 2014)
authoritative science ideas. and to seeing the usefulness of science practices as
tools for sense-making (Manz 2015).

Engage students in using their own ideas and Constructing and revising explanations of phenomena
experiences to construct and revise explanations of and solving problems can bring out students’ prior
phenomena or solving problems. ideas and helps students apply and coordinate
different scientific ideas that can be useful in
developing and revising explanations. It can also
connect science learning to experiences in their daily
lives inside and outside of school.

Model out loud how a person reasons about ideas Make sure that everyone (teachers and students!) in
(comparing ideas, changing them in response to the class asks one another questions and provides
evidence). Invite students in small groups to rehearse evidence and reasons for their ideas—rather than
conversations about evidence and explanations. saying it’s true because the teacher or text stated
it (Forman and Ford 2014). The desired student
“performance” is to change ideas and explanations
over time, which is authentic to science.

Emphasize collective sense-making as an important Engaging in collective sense-making shows how

goal (Carlone and Smithenry 2014). Ask students or reasoning can be done at the community level in
student groups who have contrary explanations to addition to the individual level. Working with ideas
share their thinking in whole class settings. takes time and response from the teacher and other
students. The payoffs are large—stronger and longer-
lasting learning.

70 The Science Teacher

 Necessary Stepping-Stones Toward Making Sense of the World

If students have the guidance and space to reason if you put in a copper cube … it’s not going to rise that
aloud with one another, they can fill the class- much, even though that copper cube would weigh
room with ideas about how to solve more, than a eraser” (Michaels and O’Connor
problems and why the ideas make 2012, p. 17).
sense in the particular context be- In this episode, we see how messy
ing examined (Cohen and Ball “first draft” attempts at reasoning can
1990). As students identify be. However, we can see Mathais
the strengths and weakness use evidence to support his claims
of their ideas, they position (i.e., “because … if … the copper
themselves to better under- cube is more, then it would have
stand the problems at hand, more volume”), and we can see
the extent to which the ideas Flevor try to generalize what he
may offer solutions (Bransford learned to other similar contexts
and Schwartz 1999), and how (i.e., “like if you got a big cup of wa-
these ideas might help in similar ter and you put… an eraser in there...
contexts later. It’s helpful for us the water level would rise a lot”). Even
as teachers to think less about cor- though the students are not immediately
recting misconceptions and more about stating accepted scientific theory, they advance
helping students engage in science reasoning their collective sense-making. These productive class-
to try out, evaluate, and refine their resources (ideas, room discussions do not happen spontaneously. Teach-
ways of thinking about the world) to explain real-world ers have to invite these comparisons. They must model
phenomena or solve problems. and ask for the use of evidence and create safe spaces
To highlight this shift, we first show how reason- for students to work together on ideas.
ing through classroom discussion can set the stage for In this example, you can see that students engage
learning. We then share teachers’ contrasting respons- in productive reasoning using their resources as they
es to student reasoning and strategies for supporting move toward making sense of this phenomenon. And,
small-group and whole-class discussions. Finally, we of- while it may not be especially obvious in the episode,
fer guidance to support teachers in considering whether there are teaching strategies that can support student
this sense-making discourse supports student learning. reasoning as an opportunity to learn (Figure 1).

An example of reasoning as opportunities Ways teachers might respond to and

to “work on ideas” extend student reasoning
In the following episode, fourth graders share ideas as In episodes where students reason by sharing their
a class to explain whether the weight or the volume of ideas in their first draft talk, a teacher might respond
an object causes the water level to rise when the object in several ways. In Figure 2, middle school students
is dropped in water and sinks. try to explain what happens to strawberries in a re-
Mathais: “Well, [in] my group … we found out that sealable plastic bag at room temperature after 20
… it was because of the volume, because … the vol- days; two possible teacher responses follow.
ume in the water level were the same, but the weight In Response A, the teacher heard Tori give what
was different. And I thought that if, um, there’s more she considered to be a wrong answer. Instead of
weight, um, in the copper cube than the … aluminum asking for clarification, guiding the students to con-
cube, then I think it just should depend on … the vol- sider other aspects, or pointing out the problem with
ume because … if … the copper cube is more, then it Tori’s idea, the teacher presented the correct idea.
would have more volume. It … really depended on the The problem with Response A, among other things,
weight.” is that the teacher has asked follow-up questions that
Teacher: “Okay. Does anyone want to respond to have shifted the focus from reasoning about the un-
that? Flevor, go ahead.” resolved issue of similarities between decomposition
Flevor: “I, um, agree with what you said because … and rotting to accepting the position from the teacher
for example, like if you … had big um, like if you got a and recalling the definition of biotic and abiotic pro-
big cup of water and you put … an eraser in there, like cesses. In this episode, only the teacher is working
the eraser over there, if you put something like that in on these ideas; active reasoning by students has been
a big cup of water, the water level would rise a lot, and, closed down. This approach may work for the few

March 2016 71
students with sufficient background knowledge to own thinking, (2) listening carefully to one another,
resolve the inconsistencies in their own heads. How- (3) deepening their reasoning, and (4) thinking with
ever, for most, this approach emphasizes superficial others. These discussions require practice but can
recall without understanding. significantly advance students’ reasoning and sense-
Response B, in contrast, shows the teacher (1) re- making about the world. They can also make science
voicing Tori’s ideas, (2) asking her for clarification, learning more engaging, meaningful, and similar to
specifically about the critical issue of whether these how science is actually practiced. Figure 3 provides
processes might be different or related, and (3) ask- other useful strategies for supporting small-group
ing other students to work with her to resolve these and whole-class discussions in classrooms that focus
ideas by drawing on their knowledge and experiences. on developing scientific sense-making.
In this episode, student resources the teacher could
ask about include “mold-gathering nutrients,” “mold
Is student reasoning moving in a promising
digestion,” and “becoming compost.” The teacher pro-
direction?
vides additional time and scaffolding for Tori or others
to continue to build on their partial understandings of Another challenge teachers face when engaging stu-
mold growth by drawing on everyday experiences or dents in sense-making is limited instruction time. Dis-
observations. cussions and reasoning are nonlinear and messy and
Extend Response B with even more student-to- do not always move from less to more sophisticated.
student turns of talk, where students inquire about Instead of always being able to predict how students
and respond to one another’s ideas. Teachers can use will work toward explaining phenomena, as teachers,
resources like Michaels and O’Connor’s (2012) Talk we can consider how well they are collaboratively at-
Science Primer to interject and guide students’ talk so tending to their idiosyncratic ways of thinking. Ad-
they are (1) sharing, expanding, and clarifying their ditionally, we can consider how effectively they have

FIGURE 2 Example responses to student reasoning

Middle School Episode

Alex: What is happening overtime in the ziplock bag is that strawberries are rotting or decomposing. What is
happening is. . .it might be that the mold grows overtime and gathers the strawberries nutrients through
digestion and the strawberries start to shrivel up and break.

Teacher: Great. So what you said was that the strawberries are rotting and decomposing. Is that the same thing or
are they two different things that are going on? And this can be a question for anybody.

Tori: I think that rotting is taking all of the nutrients up to the surface so that the mold can, I guess, digest it. And,
decomposing is when the strawberry starts to fall apart and become compost.

(Tools for Ambitious Science Teaching 2015)

Teacher Response A Teacher Response B

That’s not quite correct, Tori. Rotting and Tori, it sounds like you are saying that rotting and
decomposing are defined in the same way as the decomposing are two different processes. Tell us more about
process that breaks organic substances into much how these processes might be similar to or different from
simpler forms of matter, either through abiotic each other. Do you think they are related? [pause, then a
or biotic processes. Can anyone tell me what an student responds…] “What do some of the rest of you think
abiotic process is? How about a biotic process? about this idea?” Do you agree, disagree, or want to build on
Tori’s idea? What did you see in your own experiences that
might support or disagree with this idea?

72 The Science Teacher

 Necessary Stepping-Stones Toward Making Sense of the World

Discourse prompts that teacher or students can use for supporting sense-making talk in
FIGURE 3 small-group and whole-class discussions

When trying to make sense of phenomena

When trying to make sense of phenomena

When trying to (initially) understand an event or process Whenpressing

When preparingforstudents
possibletoexplanations
persuade others with
(whole class
(whole class) evidence
or and scientific theory (small groups)
small groups)
• What do you/we see going on here? •• What
Let’s might
focus on
be just
goingone
onpart
hereofthat
yourwe
explanation
can’t see?
(such as before, during, or after an event) or model
• What did you/we notice when ___ happened? • Why do you/we think this happens this way?
(e.g., the cause and effect or mechanism), and then
(emphasize cause)
• When or where does ___ occur? an activity we’ve done that helps you/us understand
that part
• What of the explanation/model.
do you/we think causes ____?
• Do we see any patterns in what happened?
• Why did that activity convince you that [part of the
When working on summarizing ideas and selecting
When trying to elicit ideas (whole class or small groups) explanation/model] is true?
those to work on throughout a unit (whole class)
• What do you/we think is causing this? • Is there a ‘fit’ between your evidence and your
• What are some things we are not sure about here?
explanation/model?
• What has happened here? (at level of inference)
• How could we test our ideas?
• How does your model fit with other ideas that we
• What would happen if ___?
have kinds
• What learned about in science?
of information or experiences do we
need to learn more?
When pressing for possible explanations (whole class or
When facilitating public comparison of evidence-based
small groups)
explanationsexplanations
When pressing students to construct or revise evidence-based or explanatoryand models (whole class)
explanatory models
• What might be going on here that we can’t see?
• Compare this group’s explanation/model with
When working to get students to reason about gaps or When facilitating public comparison of evidence-based
• Why do you/we think this happens this way? yours? Is it similar? Different? How?
contradictions in explanations/models (small groups) explanations or explanatory models (whole class)
(emphasize cause)
• Does their use of evidence or reasoning make you
• Can you tell me/us what role [idea X, or aspect Y] • Compare this group’s explanation/model with
• What do you/we think causes ____? re-think any part of your own explanation/model?
has in your explanation/model? yours? Is it similar? Different? How?
• Can more than one explanation/model be supported
• How
When does on
working thissummarizing
part of your ideas
explanation/model
and selectingfit • Does their use of evidence or reasoning make you
by evidence or theory?”
thosewith the rest?
to work on throughout a unit (whole class) re-think any part of your own explanation/model?

•• What
Does are
yoursome
explanation or model
things we are notprovide an account
sure about here? • Can
When more thanfinal
considering oneadaptations
explanation/model be
to final evidence-
for how and why the phenomenon/a happens? supported by evidence or theory?”
based explanations/explanatory model (whole class)
• How could we test our ideas?
• Should we go back and revise our models/
• What kinds of information or experiences do we When considering final adaptations to final evidence-
explanations?
When preparing
need to learnstudents
more? to persuade others with based explanations/explanatory model (whole class)
evidence and scientific theory (small groups) • What puzzles do we still have?
• Should we go back and revise our models/
When pressing students to construct or revise
• Let’s focus on just one part of your explanation explanations?
evidence-based explanations and explanatory Note: These strategies were taken from the
(such as before, during, or after an event) or model
models • What puzzles do we still have?
AmbitiousScienceTeaching.Org discourse tools Eliciting
(e.g., the cause and effect or mechanism), and then
an activity we’ve done that helps you/us understand Students Ideas and Adapting Instruction and Pressing
Whenthat
working
part oftothe
getexplanation/model.
students to reason about gaps or Note:
for These strategies
Evidence-Based were taken An
Explanations. from the tool
addition
contradictions in explanations/models (small groups) AmbitiousScienceTeaching.Org
is discourse
also available for Supporting Ongoing tools Eliciting
Changes in
• Why did that activity convince you that [part of the Students as
Thinking Ideas and Adapting
students Instruction
are at work and the
throughout Pressing
unit of
• Can you tell me/us what
explanation/model] role [idea X, or aspect Y]
is true? for Evidence-Based Explanations. An additional tool
instruction.
has in your explanation/model?
• Is there a ‘fit’ between your evidence and your is also available for Supporting Ongoing Changes in
• How does this part of your explanation/model fit
explanation/model? Thinking as students are at work throughout the unit of
with the rest? instruction.
• How does your model fit with other ideas that we
• Does your explanation
have learned or model provide an account
about in science?
for how and why the phenomenon/a happens?

March 2016 73
Necessary Stepping-Stones Toward Making Sense of the World

used science and engineering practices to try out, Hammer, D., A. Elby, R.E. Scherr, and E.F. Redish. 2005.
evaluate, and refine their resources in constructing Resources, framing, and transfer. In Transfer of learning
explanations. Are students attending to and negotiat- from a modern multidisciplinary perspective, ed. J.
ing one another’s ideas and ideas offered by you, the Mestre, 89–120. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
text, or other resources? It is important to think about Publishing.
and invite students to think about the extent to which Manz, E. 2014. Representing student argumentation as
new ideas are being supported by underlying reason- functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of
ing in classroom contexts (Michaels and O’Connor Educational Research 85 (4): 0–38.
2012; Russ et al. 2009). In this way, students can argue Manz, E. 2015. Resistance and the development of
for the basis of their claims either to support them or scientific practice: Designing the mangle into science
recognize the need for more revision. Finally, among instruction. Cognition and Instruction 33 (2): 89–124.
other strategies, as teachers we can consider how Michaels, S., and C. O’Connor. 2012. Talk Science Primer.
well students’ ideas are accounting for evidence in the Cambridge, MA: TERC. http://bit.ly/XWYt1m.
world, how consistent these ideas are with other sci- NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science
entific ideas they have already come to understand, Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC:
and whether there is consistency in how students’ National Academies Press.
ideas can be used in explaining similar phenomena. National Research Council (NRC). 2008. Ready, set,
science: Putting research to work in K–8 science
Conclusion classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Passmore, C., J.S. Gouvea, and R. Giere. 2014. Models
The vision of NGSS “requires a dramatic departure
in science and in learning science: Focusing scientific
from approaches to teaching and learning science
practice on sense-making. In International Handbook
occurring today in most science classrooms K–12”
of Research in History, Philosophy and Science
(Reiser 2013, p. 2). In this article we emphasize the
Teaching, ed. M.R. Matthews, 1171–1202. Dordrecht,
importance of examining student misconceptions and
Netherlands: Springer.
correcting them with sense-making activities sup-
Reiser, B. 2013. What professional development strategies
ported by the NGSS. Specifically, we suggest using
are needed for successful implementation of the
activities that engage students in science and engi-
Next Generation Science Standards? Paper written
neering practices that will help them develop their
for the Invitational Research Symposium on Science
understanding of disciplinary core ideas and cross-
Assessment.
cutting concepts and, subsequently, the world around
Russ, R.S., J.E. Coffey, D. Hammer, and P. Hutchison. 2009.
them. We hope these strategies will be a helpful guide
Making classroom assessment more accountable to
for working with student ideas in the future and will
scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic
support our collective efforts as a science education
thinking. Science Education 93 (5): 875–891.
community to support student learning. ■
Tools for Ambitious Science Teaching. 2015. Transcribed
excerpt from the video Middle School • Fungi and life
References processes • Legacy Series. University of Washington.
Bransford, J.D., and D.L. Schwartz. 1999. Rethinking
http://ambitiousscienceteaching.org.
transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications.
Warren, B., C. Ballenger, M. Ogonowski, A.S. Rosebery,
In Review of research in education, vol. 24, ed. A.
and J. Hudicourt-Barnes. 2001. Rethinking diversity in
Iran-Nejad and P.D. Pearson, 61–100. Washington, DC:
learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making.
American Educational Research Association.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38 (5): 529–552.
Carlone, H., and D. Smithenry. 2014. Creating a “We”
culture: Strategies to ensure all students connect with
science. Science and Children 52 (3): 66–71.
Cohen, D.K., and D.L. Ball. 1990. Policy and practice: An Todd Campbell ([email protected]) is
overview. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12 an associate professor at the University of
(3): 233–239. Connecticut in Storrs, Connecticut; Christina
diSessa, A.A. 1993. Toward an epistemology of physics. Schwarz ([email protected]) is an associ-
Cognition and Instruction 10 (2–3): 105–225. ate professor at Michigan State University in
Forman, E.A., and M.J. Ford. 2014. Authority and East Lansing, Michigan, and Mark Windschitl
accountability in light of disciplinary practices in ([email protected]) is a professor at the University
science. International Journal of Educational Research of Washington in Seattle.
64: 199–210.

74 The Science Teacher