Comparing children's and student teachers' ideas about science ...

Irish Educational Studies Vol. 25, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 289
302

Comparing children’s and student teachers’ ideas about science concepts Karen Kerra*, Jim Beggsb and Colette Murphya a

Queen’s University, Belfast, UK; bSt Mary’s University College, Belfast, UK

Children and teachers may not think in the same way about particular science concepts. Such parallel lines of thought can compound children’s confusion and misunderstanding as they learn science at primary school. The situation could be more acute when student teachers are teaching science, because of their limited experience of considering children’s ideas. This paper investigates children’s and student teachers’ ideas about certain science concepts: ‘animal’, ‘flower’, ‘living’, ‘force’ and ‘energy’. The ideas and understandings of 96 children and 168 student teachers were explored. Results showed that the student teachers and children had similar ideas about ‘flower’ and ‘animal’, whereas they evidenced very different responses to ‘living’, ‘energy’ and ‘force’. Implications for classroom practice are considered.

Introduction Science has been a compulsory element of the primary Northern Ireland curriculum since 1991. Student teachers in Northern Ireland must therefore show that they are developing competences as outlined by the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI) in curricular, subject and pedagogical knowledge for science. Competence development must be evidenced through ‘reflection and self-study’ (competence 3) as well as competence in setting ‘appropriate objectives, taking account of what pupils know, understand [emphasis added] and can do’ (competence 14, GTCNI, 2005). This paper considers the assumptions (frequently incorrect) that student teachers might make about children’s ideas as they take account of what pupils know, understand and can do. Background Ideas There is a substantial corpus of international research on children’s, student teachers’ and teachers’ preconceived ideas about a wide range of specific science concepts (Leach et al., 1995; Taiwo et al., 1999; Tunnicliffe & Reiss, 1999a; *Corresponding author: Queen’s University Belfast, 69/71 University Street, Belfast, BT7 1HL, UK. Email: [email protected] ISSN 0332-3315 (print)/ISSN 1747-4965 (online)/06/030289-14 # 2006 Educational Studies Association of Ireland DOI: 10.1080/03323310600913732

290

K. Kerr et al.

Toyama, 2000; Tytler, 2000; Shepardson, 2002; Jarvis et al., 2003; Leighton & Bisanz 2003; Duit, 2004; Myers et al., 2004; Hyun, 2005). It is important to consider what is meant by an ‘idea’ in order to research the thinking and notions behind the science concepts held by student teachers and children. Bruner et al. (1956) defined a concept as ‘the network of inferences that are or may be set into play by an act of categorization’. Therefore, concepts can be seen as deductions that are made as a result of making sense of and grouping actions and experiences. Smith and Medin (1981) suggested that concepts are critical for ‘perceiving, remembering, talking and thinking about objects and events in the world’. In other words, concepts can be considered as multifaceted and are used in different ways. White (2002) stated that concepts are ideas we have in our heads that we express with words; it is the ‘expressions of ideas’ that this paper considers. This study attempts to find out some of the thoughts children and student teachers hold as part of their current conceptions. Driver et al. (1985b) emphasised that exploring children’s ideas is very important as it can enable teaching to be better adapted to students. If we can access how children already think about a given science topic/concept, this information can be used to plan subsequent work, incorporating the sometimes very different preconceived ideas held by children. Learning can be promoted by accessing children’s ideas and understanding and incorporating them in curriculum development and instruction design (Shepardson, 2002). Children’s ideas in context The constructivist approach to children’s learning in science has become very popular in the last 20 years. Indeed, the South Australian Curriculum Standards and Accountability Framework, from birth to year 12, uses ‘a conception of learning which is drawn from constructivist learning theories’ to guide the formulation of its new curriculum framework (SACSA, 2000). The constructivist view of learning emphasises that teachers should identify learners’ current conceptions and then facilitate the learners to construct their own knowledge based on these. Taiwo et al. (1999) pointed out that teaching and learning should be based on children’s initial thoughts as: . . . children do not come to science classes with tabula rasa minds about science concepts. They come to school already equipped with some understanding, pseudoknowledge, or misconceptions about science. (Taiwo et al ., 1999, p. 413)

Case (1996) suggested that since children’s thoughts are responsive to external influence and social interaction, teachers should consider the context in which children build their knowledge. In keeping with a constructivist viewpoint, learners construct ‘their own meanings for the knowledge they acquire’ (White & Gunstone, 1992, p. 13). This construction can be context specific (e.g. scientific) and is carried out by the learner in an active way by collecting information from the world around

Comparing children’s and student teachers’ ideas about science concepts

291

her/him. Prior knowledge and experience can be used to build personally constructed meanings (Driver & Bell, 1986; Roth, 1990). Children have already formed ideas and ways of thinking about science concepts and occurrences from outside the classroom. Duit (1991) pointed out that preconceived ideas can influence and guide children’s school science learning. Leighton and Bisanz (2003) stressed that children’s early beliefs can also include non-scientific ideas (often referred to as ‘misconceptions’) that can shape their initial constructions. For example some children’s future understanding of the earth is often ‘constrained by certain presuppositions which children form based on interpretations of their everyday experience’ (Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992, p. 535). Wandersee et al. (1994), in their review of children’s conceptions, noted that everyday ideas can interact with the science taught in school in unintended ways. Some of the children’s ideas are based on what they have perceived, which can include ‘incidental learning’ (White & Gunstone, 1992, p. 13). For example, ‘light’ is described as ‘in the tubes’ on the classroom ceiling as a child points at the fluorescent light or it ‘comes from electricity’ (Shapiro, 1994). Children may therefore be thinking about the concepts in a totally different way from that of the teacher (scientific way). Teacher awareness and appreciation of children’s ideas Finding out about and comparing some of the thoughts that children and student teachers have about the same concepts can paint an interesting picture. Student teachers may assume that we begin a topic from where their own thoughts are or where they think children’s thoughts are on that particular topic. This may give rise to situations in which children and teachers are thinking differently about some science concepts. Teachers and student teachers need to be aware of the existence of children’s ideas and preconceived knowledge for effective learning to take place. Day (2000, p. 108) pointed out that effective learning involves an ‘interactive chemistry’ between child and teacher, which ‘depends on process as much as content’. The consideration and valuing of children’s existing ideas can lead to such an ‘interactive chemistry’ as we can engage children by starting with their ideas and helping them to build on what they already know. Issues surrounding access to children’s ideas Many methods have been implemented to probe learners’ ideas and understandings (White & Gunstone, 1992). Each has a different purpose and seeks to probe different aspects of understanding. Driver and Erikson (1983) divided a range of methods into ‘phenomenological’ and ‘conceptually based’ approaches. Phenomenological approaches involve presenting learners with particular phenomena and asking them to give explanations about how things happen and then make predictions.

292

K. Kerr et al.

A fundamental characteristic of phenomenological approaches is that the learner ‘selects the language and representations to communicate that knowledge scheme’ (Leach et al., 1995, p. 723). A classic example is the Piagetian clinical interview. Other examples of this approach include ‘interview-about-events’ (Osborne & Gilbert, 1980), ‘predict
observe
explain’ techniques (Gunstone & White, 1981), concept cartoons (Keogh & Naylor, 1999), and recording learners’ spontaneous conversations (Tunnicliffe & Reiss, 1999a). Conceptually based approaches, on the other hand, involve presenting children with words and asking them to perform certain tasks. Examples of conceptually based approaches include learners being asked to give definitions of terms (Adeniyi, 1985; Murphy, 1987), concept mapping and flow mapping (Novak & Gowin, 1984; Novak & Musonda, 1991; Tsai, 2001) and word-association techniques (Shavelson, 1974). They focus on aspects of learners’ ‘propositional knowledge structure’ and they allow inferences to be made about the meanings that learners give to scientific language (Leach et al., 1995). A conceptually based ‘probe’ of ideas and understandings was used in this study (definitions/concept ‘game’). Tunnicliffe and Reiss (1999b) described conceptually based approaches as ‘of value’ with regard to considering children’s ideas. Due to the fact that a conceptually based approach was used, this study focuses on the meanings, ideas and understandings individuals give to science terms. Therefore, inferences cannot and will not be made on how learners interpret instances in their own terms (Leach et al., 1995). Methodology Data were collected from 96 children aged four to 11 in nine primary schools throughout Northern Ireland. Definitions for the ‘concept words’ were collected from 168 student teachers in an ITE University College in Belfast. The ‘concept words’ were familiar to children and student teachers as they were taken from the Northern Ireland Curriculum Programme of Study for Science and Technology at Key Stage one and two (Department of Education for Northern Ireland [DENI], 1996). The ‘concept words’ used for analysis were ‘flower’, ‘animal’, ‘living’, ‘energy’ and ‘force’ to represent different aspects of the curriculum. A selection of what the authors deemed as both concrete (‘animal’, ‘flower’) and abstract (‘living’, ‘energy’, ‘force’) concepts were considered. There was an opportunity to probe five science concepts during one science lesson. Different methods of data collection were chosen for children and student teachers. Children’s ideas were probed through use of a ‘concept game’ designed to explore their ideas about science concepts. The game involved whole classes of children (a class at a time) ranging from four years old to 11 years old. Children were offered the opportunity to come forward one at a time and were shown the word on a piece of card (the word was also whispered to the child). The child then gave the rest of the class ‘clues’ about the word to help them guess it. The recording sheet, developed from a small pilot (with two classes)

Comparing children’s and student teachers’ ideas about science concepts

293

was then used to record both the ‘clues’ and the ‘guesses’. The game was played with the children and the data recorded by 15 Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) students on school placement and by the authors. The design of the game allows the researchers to access the ideas held for these concepts, outside the realm of a science lesson. This open-ended method of obtaining data was used as it allows the children to give ‘free responses’ so as much as possible can be learned from the children themselves and their acquisition of science concepts, rather than by testing children’s performance in tasks formulated by the investigator (e.g. through use of ‘closed questions’). Therefore, a grounded theory methodology was adopted as the definitions collected are ‘slices of social life’ that ‘portray moments in time’ and the research tool used meant that the subjects had the opportunity to express everyday understandings in a social context (Pidgeon & Henwood, 1996; Charmaz, 2000). These definitions will change and this activity can only represent the children’s and student teacher’s thoughts and ideas at that moment in time, a point which highlights the importance of considering children’s ideas as they progress through the learning process. Indeed, not all children or classes of children can be said to hold the same ideas at a certain time. In keeping with a tenet of grounded theory the data were also collected without preconceived questions, i.e. the subjects were not ‘tested’ on science knowledge (Glaser, 1978, 1992). For student teachers data collection was carried out by writing definitions for selected science concepts. Writing definitions was a quick method of exploring ideas on the concepts: ‘flower’, ‘animal’, ‘living’, ‘energy’ and ‘force’. The definitions were collected at the start of a science session. They were given the instruction: ‘explain what each concept is as if you were explaining it to aliens from another planet who would never have met the word before’. A series of grounded theory coding and categorisation processes was used to analyse the data from the concept word definitions and ‘clues’ (Figure 1). The coding process involved initial, open coding followed by more focused coding. In other words, the data were initially analysed word by word without putting in place preconceived frameworks/categories (Glaser, 1978, 1992; Charmaz, 2006). This resulted in a number of categories and codes. This process was followed by more focused coding which gave rise to codes that were more ‘directed, selected and conceptual’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. 57). The resultant codes outlined and defined in Figure 1 were: ‘perceptible’, ‘scientific’, ‘human centred’. It is important to note that through this process the authors created ‘constructions about the children’s constructions’ (Shepardson, 2002, p. 630). Therefore, for the purposes of interrater reliability all data were coded by the first author and 10% was then recoded by the other authors. Agreement was reached on 80% of the coded phrases. The ideas from children and student teachers for each corresponding ‘concept word’ were compared with reference to various coded categories derived from their definitions.

294

K. Kerr et al.

(1) Grouping of definitions given by adults into tables relating to references to specific science areas/processes (e.g. references to ‘different groups’, references to ‘living outside’)

(2) Further classification of categories from the tables into more general science areas/processes (e.g. references to classification, references to niche)

(3) Compilation of databases of all the ‘clues’ given by children and all the definitions given by adults.

(4) Colour coding of databases into various groups.

(5) Redefinition of groups resulting in: ‘perceptible’ phrases, ‘human centred’ phrases and ‘scientific’ phrases

‘Perceptible’: phrases based on what is seen/felt/heard/ smelt/tasted or ideas held by children before instruction

‘Scientific’: phrases based on a ‘learned response’ – ‘scientifically correct’ and/or as a result of teaching

The chosen coding groups were based on terms used to describe children’s ideas on scientific concepts by Driver et al. (1994)

‘Human centred’: phrases based on human experiences or emphasised human ideals

Figure 1. Flowchart representation of the process of data analysis

Results and discussion A comparison of phrases given by the children and student teachers corresponding to each of the colour coded groups for all the concept words is shown in Figure 2. Responses for ‘flower’ and ‘animal’ contained a majority of ‘perceptible’ phrases and many fewer ‘scientific’ phrases for both student teachers and children. With reference to Driver et al.’s (1985a, pp. 193
201) common features between

Comparing children’s and student teachers’ ideas about science concepts

295

Figure 2. A comparison of phrases given by children (96 in sample) and student teachers (168 in sample) corresponding to each of the colour-coded groups for the ‘concept words’

296

K. Kerr et al.

children’s conceptions, some of these scientific concepts (‘flower’ and ‘animal’) are mainly based on ‘perceptually dominated thinking’ for both groups of subjects. There are some similarities in how student teachers and children think about these concepts. For example: Animal: Four legs, can’t talk. (student teacher) Flower: Something which grows out of the ground. They are usually colourful. (student teacher) Animal: It’s got four legs. A dog is one. (child) Flower: Grows in the ground. (child) Flower: It’s outside. It can be different colours. (child)

This evidence supports the view that children’s and student teachers’ scientific ideas are similar. Many researchers have reported that the so called ‘naive’ scientific ideas (likened to the ‘perceptible’ coding group in this paper) held by student teachers and children are often not too dissimilar (Baxter, 1989; Kruger et al., 1990; Driver et al., 1994; Summers et al., 2000). A high proportion of the definitions given by student teachers for the concept words ‘energy’ and ‘force’ also contained a ‘limited focus on one particular physical situation’, a characteristic of children’s ideas (Driver et al., 1985a, p. 194). The focus for ‘energy’ was a need for it in order to ‘do things’ and the focus for ‘force’ was the phrases ‘push and pull’. For example: Energy: Something all around us, we need it to move or do anything. (student teacher) Force: Push or pull. Also moves things, this push or pull must be applied to something in order for a force to become real. (student teacher) Energy: You need it to run about. (child) Force: You can, like, push. It’s a certain way of moving, like, push. (child)

The references to ‘push and pull’ were made by student teachers and can also be considered a ‘context dependent’ use of understanding as this phrase is used to explain forces in the Northern Ireland Curriculum Programme of Study for Science and Technology (DENI, 1996). However, the student teachers gave a much higher percentage of ‘scientific’ responses for ‘force’ and ‘energy’ which shows that they think differently about these concepts. For example: Energy: Is something that creates a force, it can be supplied by natural or man-made power. (student teacher) Force: Something that causes an object to move, change direction, change shape or stop. (student teacher) Energy: When someone’s mad, when someone has a lot of it. (child) Force: It’s somebody who, like your friends, and makes you do something. Friends make you do something you don’t want to do. Somebody makes you get on your bike when you don’t want to. There’s a name for it. It’s not a person. (child)

Lawson (1988) pointed out that children do not need experts to explain physical science to them. Lawson suggested that they are quite clear about what happens with pushes and pulls and experience gravity every time something falls. Children do not consider ‘force’ to be an abstract concept. Leighton and Bisanz (2003, p. 119)

Comparing children’s and student teachers’ ideas about science concepts

297

acknowledged that children are then ‘free to form naı¨ve beliefs about physical phenomena’ that are based on their own experience. This experience, as yet, lacks formal physics teaching. Student teachers on the other hand gave many of their definitions based on taught physical science descriptions. It appears that student teachers retain and call upon rote-learned responses for abstract concepts. Rotelearned responses may run parallel with other ideas that they have about these concepts (Hewson, 1981). Student teachers may be unaware that their parallel ideas, based on perception, are actually quite similar to the ideas held by children. Instead they have communicated the accepted ‘scientific’ response for ‘force’ and ‘energy’. This can also lead to student teachers presenting science as a set of facts or laws to be learned. As a consequence science may not then be presented as an ever-changing ‘body of knowledge’ that is constantly being reviewed (Bennett & Carre, 1993; Driver et al., 1996; Jarvis et al., 2003). There is a difference in how children and student teachers define ‘living’. ‘Human centred’ responses dominated the children’s definitions whereas student teachers gave mainly ‘perceptible responses’. This was because student teachers tended to describe the visible processes of living things and children focused on living in their houses. For example: Living: Something that can move. (student teacher) Living: To be living is to move and grow. (student teacher) Living: In your house. You stay. (child) Living: You live in it. You sleep in it. You watch TV in it. Sometimes you have a wee car beside it. You put the car in the garage. (child)

Hyun (2005) found evidence for an intellectual mismatch between young children’s and adults’ thought processes. In this case, the mismatch is related to interpretation of the word. Children see ‘living’ in relation to where and how people ‘live’. Student teachers have attempted to talk about the scientific ‘seven processes of living things’, although the majority name only the ones that can be perceived (or those that they have retained from their own school experience). The individual definitions highlight that the codes given are open to interpretation. For example many biologists may code the children’s references to ‘living in my house’ or ‘a dog lives in a kennel’ and what they do there as scientific as these ideas are linked to the concept of a niche: Niche, Ecology : The function or position of an organism or population within an ecological community. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niche)

It is important to remember that these interpretations are constructions of the children and student teachers which are open to individual analysis. Interpretation is dependent on the constructions a researcher makes from the information available (Shepardson, 2002). The evidence presented in this paper shows that children and student teachers think similarly about some concepts and differently about others. Tao and Gunstone (2000) suggested that learning a particular concept is often bound to its context and

298

K. Kerr et al.

that learners may fail to relate ideas learned for one concept to another (for example between ‘living’ and ‘energy’). Furthermore, Heywood and Parker (2001) pointed out that student teachers have difficulties with the actual subject matter within particular concepts. This point is evidenced when we consider how student teachers responded to the concept words ‘living’, ‘flower’ and ‘animal’ (the majority of phrases were not scientific). Educational implications The fact that the concept words are thought about in similar and/or different ways by student teachers and children has obvious implications for classroom practice and initial teacher education. Implications for classroom practice Children evidenced very different ideas about some concepts (‘force’ and ‘energy’) even though teachers may begin a topic assuming that the children ‘know’ very little about it or that their ideas are ‘irrelevant’. However, the everyday ideas children hold are often correct and relevant to their experience. Children could be introduced to the ‘scientific’ use of the word ‘force’ so that instead of changing their concept, they are free to think of ‘force’ in both the everyday and the scientific contexts (Murphy, 2004). It may just be a case of thinking about the same word in a different context (e.g. force is being made to do something). It is therefore paramount that teachers and student teachers ‘access students’ overall level of background knowledge’ (Leighton & Bisanz, 2003, p. 134). Gooday and Wilson (1996) suggested that we may be ‘misguided’ in the selection of ‘starting points’ for topics and it is important to start as ‘the students see they should’. This can be achieved by probing and considering the ideas children hold. Natural curiosity and inquiry to learn should be promoted and nurtured in a way that ‘allows them to feel free and safe to question and explore’ (Hyun, 2005, p. 209). Incorporation of questioning and exploring often requires student teachers to lose the fear of being wrong or not knowing the ‘right’ answer. Shared experience will guide the next stage in the learning experience. Children’s existing ideas must therefore be valued and incorporated into teaching. Thinking similarly about some concepts highlights the importance of student teachers exploring the relationship between their own ideas and the children’s. Should they focus on non-scientific views as well? Implications for initial teacher education Primary student teachers may not have a specialist scientific background and consequently may have ideas similar to those of children (‘flower’ and ‘animal’). These ideas may hinder children’s learning as student teachers base their teaching

Comparing children’s and student teachers’ ideas about science concepts

299

on their own experience. For development of effective pedagogy student teachers must ‘develop their own understanding about scientific concepts’ (Parker & Heywood, 2000, p. 90). Scientific understanding has to be addressed and coupled with good subject knowledge (Jarvis et al., 2003). Good subject knowledge will prevent student teachers from communicating science as a set of facts or laws to be rote learned (as they did) and encourage their presentation as ever-changing ideas. Student teachers need to engage intellectually and practically ‘on a personal level’ with their own ideas as part of their initial teacher education (Parker & Heywood, 2000). Additionally, more engagement with children’s ideas will also develop effective pedagogy. Llinares (2000) also drew attention to the importance of the contextual knowledge of teaching practice for student teachers as it can affect the way they use their own content and pedagogical knowledge in the future. It may be as simple as pointing out to the children that some words can be used in different ways for different situations. For example ‘living’ can be where we live and related to the concept of a ‘niche’ but it is also used to distinguish between living things and non-living things in science. In summary, initial teacher education can facilitate effective practitioners by ensuring: . . . a personal understanding of subject matter but also a subtle knowledge of pedagogical implications for teaching. (Parker & Heywood 2000, p.109)

The personal understandings of children must also be valued, incorporated and related to science teaching and learning. Conclusion Some concepts may be thought about in different ways by student teachers and children. In this study, meanings, ideas and understandings individuals gave to a few science words were considered. Consequently inferences cannot be made on how learners interpret all science experiences in their own terms (Leach et al., 1995). In order to be able to make such inferences more concepts would need to be considered and more probes for understandings employed. Tunnicliffe and Reiss (1999a) suggested that learners could be interviewed to resolve uncertainties and probe misunderstandings in further detail. White and Gunstone (1992) highlighted the importance of using more than one probe: Restriction of measurement to one form, or too small a number of forms can distort the construct and lead to neglect of important aspects of it. (White & Gunstone, 1992, p. 2)

Probing children’s personal (and sometimes very different) ideas is an illustration of a constructivist tenet: that learning is a private act with understanding being constructed by each individual ‘knower’ (Von Glasersfeld, 1992). However, teaching is now considered a social activity (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). By considering individual thoughts through social activity we can the help each ‘knower’ to learn effectively.

300

K. Kerr et al.

How information is deciphered, ingested, understood (or not) and expressed is particular to an individual and his/her lifelong experiences. This is the case even if children/student teachers are taught in a similar social arena at a given time. These lifelong experiences take place both inside and outside school and both must be considered in relation to how concepts are thought about and understood.

References Adeniyi, E. O. (1985) Misconceptions of selected ecological concepts held by some Nigerian students, Journal of Biological Education, 19, 311
316. Baxter, J. (1989) Children’s understanding of familiar astronomical events, International Journal of Science Education, 11, 502
513. Bennett, N & Carre, C. (1993) Learning to teach (London, Routledge). Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. & Austin, G. (1956) A study of thinking (New York, Wiley). Case, R. (1996) Introduction: Reconceptualizing the nature of children’s conceptual structures and their development in middle childhood, in: R. Case & Y. Okamoto (Eds) The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , serial No. 246, 61(1
2), 1
26. Charmaz, K. (2000) Grounded theory, objectivist and constructivist methods, in: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edn) (London, Sage Publications). Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing grounded theory, a practical guide through qualitative analysis (London, Sage Publications). Day, C. (2000) Teachers in the twenty-first century: time to renew the vision, Teachers and Training: Theory and Practice, 6(1), 101
115. Department of Education, Northern Ireland (DENI) (1996) Northern Ireland Curriculum, Programme of Study for Science and Technology (Belfast, HMSO). Driver, R. & Bell, B. F. (1986) Student’s thinking and the learning of science: a constructivist view, School Science Review, 67, 443
456. Driver, R. & Erikson, G. (1983) Theories-in-action: some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students; conceptual frameworks in science, Studies in Science Education, 10, 37
60. Driver, R., Guesne, E. & Tiberghien, A. (1985a) Some features of children’s ideas and their implications for teaching, in: R. Driver, E. Guesne & A. Tiberghien (Eds) Children’s ideas in science (Buckingham, Open University Press). Driver, R., Guesne, E. & Tiberghien, A. (1985b) Children’s ideas and the learning of science, in: R. Driver, E. Guesne & A. Tiberghien (Eds) Children’s ideas in science (Buckingham, Open University Press). Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P. & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994) Making sense of secondary science: research into children’s idea (London, RoutledgeFalmer). Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996) Young people’s images of science (Buckingham, Open University Press). Duit, R. (1991) Students’ conceptual frameworks: consequences for learning science, in: R. Glynn, R. Yeany & B. Britton (Eds) The psychology of learning science (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum). Duit, R. (2004) Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education: a bibliography. Available online at: http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html (accessed 30 June 2006). General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (2005) Review of teacher competences and continuing professional development. Available online at: http://www.gtcni.org.uk/publications/ publications_Titles.cfm?ID/16 (accessed 28 June 2006). Glaser, B. G. (1978) Theoretical sensitivity (Mill Valley, CA, Sociology Press).

Comparing children’s and student teachers’ ideas about science concepts

301

Glaser, B. G. (1992) Basics of grounded theory analysis: emergence vs. forcing (Mill Valley, CA, Sociology Press). Gooday, M. & Wilson, J. (1996) Primary pre-service courses in science: a basis for review and innovation, Journal of Education for Teaching, 22(1), 95
110. Gunstone, R. F. & White, R. T. (1981) Understanding of gravity, Science Education, 65, 291
299. Hewson, P. W. (1981) A conceptual change approach to learning science, European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383
396. Heywood, D. & Parker, J. (2001) Describing the cognitive landscape in learning and teaching about forces, International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1177
1199. Hyun, E. (2005) How is young children’s intellectual culture of perceiving nature different from adults’?, Environmental Education Research, 11(2), 199
214. Jarvis, T., Pell, A. & Mc Keon, F. (2003) Changes in primary teacher’s science knowledge and understanding during a two year in-service programme, Research in Science and Technological Education, 21(1), 17
42. Keogh, B. & Naylor, S. (1999) Concept Cartoons, teaching and learning in science: an evaluation, International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431
446. Kruger, C., Palacio, D. & Summers, M. (1990) An investigation of primary school teachers’ conceptions of force and motion, Educational Research, 32, 83
95. Lawson, A. E. (1988) The acquisition of biological knowledge during childhood: cognitive conflict or tabula rasa , Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 185
199. Leach, J., Driver, R, Scott, P. & Wood-Robinson, C. (1995) Children’s ideas about ecology 1: theoretical background, design and methodology, International Journal of Science Education, 6, 721
732. Leighton, J. P. & Bisanz, G. L. (2003) Children’s and adults’ knowledge and models of reasoning about the ozone layer and its depletion, International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 117
139. Llinares, S. (2000) Secondary school mathematics teachers’ professional knowledge: a case from the teaching of the concept of function, Teachers and Teaching, 6, 41
62. Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2003) Meaning making in secondary science classrooms (Berkshire, Open University Press). Murphy, C. (1987) Primary science: an analysis of concept formation in 5 to 7 year old children , M.Ed. dissertation, Queen’s University, Belfast. Murphy, C. (2004) How does the thermometer know that I’m sick?, lecture given at St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, Dublin, Ireland. Myers, O. E., Saounsers, C. D. & Garrett, E. (2004) What do children think animals need? Developmental trends, Environmental Education Research, 10(4), 545
562. Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984) Learning how to learn (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Novak, J. D. & Musonda, D. (1991) A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning, American Educational Research Journal, 28, 117
153. Osborne, R. J. & Gilbert, J. K. (1980) A method for the investigation of concept understanding in science, European Journal of Science Education, 2(3), 311
321. Parker, J. & Heywood, D. (2000) Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about forces, International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 89
111. Pidgeon, N. & Henwood, K. (1996) Grounded theory: practical implementation, in: J. T. E. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (Leicester, BPS Books [British Psychological Society]). Roth, K. J. (1990) Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science, in: B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds) Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).

302

K. Kerr et al.

SACSA (South Australian Curriculum Standards and Accountability Framework) (2000) From birth to year 12 (Department of Education and Children’s Services, Government of South Australia). Shapiro, B. (1994) What children bring to light: a constructivist perspective on children’s learning in science (London, Teachers College Press). Shavelson, R. J. (1974) Methods for examining representations of a subject-matter structure in a student’s memory, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 231
249. Shepardson, D. P. (2002) Bugs, butterflies, and spiders: children’s understandings about insects, International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 627
643. Smith, E. E. & Medin, D. L. (1981) Categories and concepts (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press). Summers, M., Kruger, C., Childs, A. & Mant, J. (2000) Primary school teachers’ understanding of environmental issues: an interview study, Environmental Education Research, 6(4), 293
312. Taiwo, A. A., Ray, H., Motswiri, M. J. & Masene, R. (1999) Perceptions of the water cycle among primary school children in Botswana, International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 413
429. Tao, P. & Gunstone, R. F. (2000) The process of conceptual change in forces and motion during computer supported physics instruction, Journal of Research in Science and Technology, 36(7), 859
882. Toyama, N. (2000) ‘What are food and air like inside our bodies?’: children’s thinking about digestion and respiration, International Journal of Behavioural Development, 24(2), 222
230. Tsai, C.-C. (2001) Probing students’ cognitive structures in science: the use of a flow map method coupled with a meta-listening technique, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 257
268. Tunnicliffe, S. D. & Reiss, M. J. (1999a) Students’ understandings about animal skeletons, International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1187
1200. Tunnicliffe, S. D. & Reiss, M. J. (1999b) Opportunities for sex education and personal and social education (PSE) through science lessons: the comments of primary pupils when observing meal worms and brine shrimps, International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 1007
1020. Tytler, R. (2000) A comparison of year 1 and year 6 students’ conceptions of evaporation and condensation: dimensions of conceptual progression, International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 447
467. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1992) A constructivist’s view of learning and teaching, in: R. Duit, F. Goldberg & H. Niedderer (Eds) Research in physics learning: theoretical issues and empirical studies , Proceedings of an International Workshop held at the University of Bremen, March 4
8 1991 (Kiel, Institut fur die Padagogik der Naturwissenschaften an der Universitat). Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1992) Mental models of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood, Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535
585. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J. & Novak, J. D. (1994) Research on alternative conceptions in science, in: D. Gabel (Ed.) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (New York, Macmillan). White, J. (2002) The child’s mind (London, RoutledgeFalmer). White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992) Probing understanding (London, Falmer Press).