J Sci Teacher Educ (2008) 19:437454

DOI 10.1007/s10972-008-9102-y

Elementary Teachers Understanding of Students

Science Misconceptions: Implications for Practice
and Teacher Education
Susan Gomez-Zwiep

Published online: 11 June 2008

Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2008

Abstract This study sought to determine what elementary teachers know about
student science misconceptions and how teachers address student misconceptions in
instruction. The sample included 30 teachers from California with at least 1-year of
experience teaching grades 3, 4, and 5. A semistructured interview was used. The
interview transcripts were transcribed and coded under the following categories:
definition of misconceptions, sources of misconceptions, development of misconceptions, and teaching strategies for addressing misconceptions. The results suggest
that, although most of the teachers are aware of misconceptions, they do not
understand how they develop or fully appreciate their impact on their instruction.
Keywords Inservice teacher education
Science education
Concept formation

Teaching methods
Preservice teacher education
Misconceptions

Introduction
Misconceptions appear across all areas of science and within all age groups.
Empirical evidence has shown that children have qualitative differences in his or her
understanding of science that is often inconsistent with what the teacher intended
through his or her instruction (Bar 1989; Bar et al. 1994; Pine et al. 2001; Tao and
Gunstone 1999; Trend 2001). Research findings consistently show that misconceptions are deeply rooted, often remaining even after instruction (Eryilmaz 2002).
However, misconceptions are more than misunderstandings about a concept.
Misconceptions are part of a larger knowledge system that involves many
interrelated concepts that students use to make sense of their experiences
S. Gomez-Zwiep (&)
Science Education, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd.,
Long Beach, CA 90840, USA
e-mail: sgomezwp@csulb.edu

123

438

S. Gomez-Zwiep

(Southerland et al. 2001). Misconceptions are extensions of effective knowledge

that function productively within a specific context. These misconceptions become
apparent when students attempt to use their knowledge beyond the context in which
the knowledge functions effectively (Smith et al. 1993). Thus, since misconceptions
are often integrated with other knowledge, they may include aspects of both expert
and novice understandings and may be useful in constructing accurate scientific
understandings.
A gap remains between what research has revealed about misconceptions and
knowledge of how this research is applied in the classroom. There is a significant
body of research on instructional strategies shown to be effective at dealing with
student misconceptions (Ausubel 1968; Guzzetti 2000; Posner et al. 1982). The
research-based strategies have demonstrated some success at addressing misconceptions by expanding student thinking through dialogue and experimentation.
Although these strategies often involve some form of activity, these activities are
selected to specifically confront the misconception by presenting unexpected results
not previously considered by the learner. The teacher is a vital piece in the success
of these strategies, often facilitating student thinking through questioning and
student discourse. What limited research exists regarding teachers and misconceptions has shown that preservice and novice teachers are often unaware that their
students may have misconceptions. In addition, even when teachers are aware of
misconceptions, they are unlikely to use any knowledge of misconceptions in their
instruction (Halim and Meerah 2002). Meyer (2004) also examined expert teachers
and found that they have very complex conceptions of prior knowledge and made
significant use of their students prior knowledge, such as misconceptions, in
instruction. Past research has focused on the extremes of the teaching experience
spectrum, novice to expert (Halim and Meerah 2002; Meyer 2004). However, there
remains a gap regarding the teacher who falls somewhere between an expert and a
novice. Little is known about what the teachers know about this topicteachers
who have experience teaching elementary school, but do not have any particular
training in the area of misconceptions and natural sciences beyond what they have
experienced in their teacher preparation programs, teacher professional development, or both. This study will attempt to identify to what extent teachers across a
range of experience are aware of how misconceptions develop in students and if
these teachers are aware of and use techniques to mediate misconceptions in their
students.

Methods
Terminology
There are several terms in the research used in this area: misconceptions (Bar and
Travis 1991; Eryilmaz 2002; Schmidt 1997; Sneider and Ohadi 1998), nave views
or conception (Bar 1989; Hesse and Anderson 1992; Pine et al. 2001), preconceptions (Benson et al. 1993), alternative views (Bar and Travis 1991; Gabel Stockton
et al. 2001; Sequeira and Leite 1991; Trend 2001), and alternative conceptions

123

Teachers Understanding of Student Misconceptions

Table 1 Summary of years of
experience

439

Years of teaching 3rd grade

experience

4th grade

5th grade

13

46

79

1012

1315

15+

1 (28 years) 1 (28 years) 1 (35 years)

Total

12

10

Total

4
3
30

(Hewson and Hewson 2003). Teachers were found to be much more familiar with
the term misconception in the pilot study used to craft the interview questions and
it is for that reason that this term is used in this study.
Research Participants
The sample consisted of 30 teachers, representing 12 schools in seven different
districts across the state of California. The teachers had experience teaching third,
fourth, and fifth grade students. The level of experience ranged from 1 to 30 years of
teaching (Table 1). The intent of the study was to investigate teachers with
experience teaching elementary school, but teachers who would not be considered
an expert or a novice. Thus, the only requirements for participation were at least
1 year of teaching experience in a K8 setting and a valid elementary teaching
credential (certified to teach multiple subjects grades K8). The sample included
teachers from a wide range of school environments covering bilingual and Englishonly classrooms, high-performing and low-performing schools, rural and urban
schools, and all levels of socioeconomic neighborhoods. It was assumed that some
level of expertise is necessary for a teacher to understand misconceptions in general.
Therefore, the selection of these teachers was based on recommendations from
principals, colleagues, and professional development consultants who were
contacted via telephone and e-mail. These individuals were requested to recommend
elementary teachers who taught in grades three, four, or five and who did not have
any specialized science training beyond the their credential program. In addition,
teachers were requested who were responsible for teaching science in a general
education setting, rather than a science-specific setting. Once a teacher was
recommended, I (the author of this article) contacted them either by telephone or by
e-mail to arrange a time and place for the interview.
Construction of Interview Questions
A pilot study was used to identify guiding variables and relationships for the current
study. The pilot study used qualitative data-collection methods to investigate the
level of understanding of students science misconceptions among a group of
preservice teachers. Twenty-five preservice teachers were interviewed about their

123

440

S. Gomez-Zwiep

Table 2 Interview schedule: questions asked of all teachers in the study

Question
1.

What grade level do you currently teach or plan to teach?

2.

Are there any other grade levels you have experience with?

3.

How long have you been teaching at this grade level?

4.

How many science-related courses have you taken?

5.

What can you tell me about what a misconception is?

How do people/students get science misconceptions? Where do they come from?

7.

In your experience, what are some common science misconceptions your students have had?

As students grow and mature, what happens to their science misconceptions?

9.

How does a students misconception affect the success of your science teaching?

10. How much do you think about misconceptions while you are planning a science lesson/before you
teach a science lesson?
11. What have you done to help a student mediate or correct a science misconception?

current use and understanding of student misconceptions in science. A semistructured interview process was used to address issues, including what a misconception
is, what role misconceptions play in learning, and how might such misconceptions
be addressed in instruction, among other questions. The interviews required that the
students had little prior explicit instruction in constructivism as a philosophical
orientation toward teaching and learning. Common themes were identified,
analyzed, and evaluated. The results were used as the basis for the formulation of
the interview questions for this study (Table 2).
Interview Protocol
This exploratory research study was designed to address two research questions:
1.
2.

To what extent do teachers understand what students misconceptions are and

how science misconceptions develop?
What do teachers know about how to address misconceptions?

The interviews were used to explore practicing elementary teachers understanding

about misconceptions, namely, what they are, how they develop, and how
instruction can address a misconception. The interview questions were designed
to give an indication of a teachers understanding of misconceptions, origins and
longevity of misconceptions, and what they as teachers can do about dislodging
student misconceptions. Thirty interviews were conducted from January to April,
2005. Teachers were interviewed individually or in small groups of two to four
teachers. The interviews took place in the teachers classrooms or in a convenient
location, such as a local coffee shop. All interviews were audiotaped, and the
teachers responses were transcribed. Interviews lasted from 1 to 1.5 h. Teachers
were asked each question in order. If they had difficulty developing a definition of a
misconception or recalling specific examples of misconceptions, the interviewer
provided additional information, such as examples of typical elementary student

123

Teachers Understanding of Student Misconceptions

441

misconceptions. For example, a fifth-grade teacher might be informed that students

often have difficulty identifying gases as a state of matter consistently. If a teacher
provided a wrong answer as an example of a misconception, I did not correct them.
If I felt the teachers response was unclear, follow-up questions were used to elicit
additional responses. For example, if the teacher stated that he or she might use
hands-on activities to help mediate student misconceptions, I would ask, as a
follow-up question, if they had a particular example in mind or how they might use
an activity.
Data Analysis
The qualitative analysis of interview transcripts began with initial descriptive codes
being assigned to teacher responses (Mason 1996). Examples of these initial codes
include general awareness, student thinking, and instruction. These initial codes
were then subdivided according to common themes seen in the interview transcripts.
Common themes used included the definition of misconceptions, the sources of
misconceptions, the development of misconceptions, and teaching strategies for
addressing misconceptions. Qualitative data analysis is a cyclical process (Mason
1996; Strauss and Corbin 1990). Codes were modified, merged, or deleted during
the iterative coding process. For example, the transcripts were initially coded for
awareness of misconceptions. However, as more data were coded and recoded, it
became necessary to bifurcate this initial code to include definitions of
misconceptions and examples of misconceptions.
Two additional reviewers were used to ensure the reliability of the interview
transcript codes. The additional reviewers identified possible codes and trends in the
interview transcripts. The secondary reviewers individually identified similar trends
in the coding categories 91% of the time. When differences existed, raters discussed
evidence from the data and reached consensus on the final rating.

Findings
The interviews were given a numeric code to hide the identity of the participant.
This code contains two numbers. The first number refers to the grade level taught
and the second number refers to the order in which the interview was conducted. For
example, a code of 4.2 represents the second fourth-grade teacher interviewed.
The Nature of Misconceptions
Teachers Definition of Misconceptions
The current literature defines a misconception as a belief that contradicts accepted
scientific theory (Eryilmaz 2002). Out of the 30 teachers interviewed, only 5
(13.67%) were unfamiliar with the term and were unable to provide any definition
of a misconception. However, the five teachers were familiar with the experience of

123

442

S. Gomez-Zwiep

their students misinterpreting science concepts. The majority of teachers

interviewed (83.3%) were able to partially define a misconception. These definitions
tended to be vague and broad. Although the teachers were aware of misconceptions,
they had difficulty putting their thoughts about misconceptions into words: [The
students] perception isnt correct. Their reality doesnt match what is real. It is
almost prejudging (5.6). Another said, Being unclear in whatever in science that
can be unclear (4.3). Teachers described misconceptions as a lack of knowledge
about a science concept. Teachers tied their definition of a misconception to formal
science instruction, rather than the childs own thoughts or personal experimentation: A misconception is a misunderstanding about what we are saying to them.
They think they understand the concept, but they have the wrong understanding of
it (3.1). Another teacher stated, They dont understand what they are learning, the
right way; they think it happens the wrong way. They think that science is just
animals (4.6).
Several teachers went so far as to suggest that students do not have personal
ideas about science. These teachers suggested that students do not think about
science outside of school and that, despite several years of education, they enter
upper elementary classrooms with virtually no science knowledge of their own:
Children dont have much of an idea about science in any way. I assume they are
blank slates, ready to take in whatever I have to give (3.7). Another said, They
dont really have a lot of knowledge about what science we are teaching them. It is
like a blank slate (4.4). A third teacher stated, [Students] dont have ideas about
science. You cant have wrong ideas about science if you dont have any ideas at
all. I am not implying that they are stupid. They just dont think about science
(5.7).
Student misconceptions are deeply rooted into existing knowledge structures and
may resist change to such a degree that the student will alter the intended meaning
of instruction to integrate the new knowledge into the existing schema (Chi et al.
1994; Osborne and Cosgrove 1983; Tsai 2003). However, there was only one
instance of a teacher defining a misconception as something that might impact the
development of further learning in a student. Out of the 30 teachers interviewed,
only one teacher viewed a misconception as something that might inhibit current or
future understanding: a general misunderstanding about the way something
works. A child has a misunderstanding about a concept that inhibits them from full
understanding and from further understanding (3.2). Of the 30 teachers
interviewed, 25 teachers provided only a partial definition of a misconception. Of
those, only 17 teachers were able to provide examples from their experiences with
students. Thus, 43% of the teachers in the sample did not have a complete
understanding of the nature of science misconceptions.

Examples of Student Science Misconceptions Provided by Interviews

Children have their own views about scientific phenomena (Bar 1989; Bar et al.
1994; Pine et al. 2001). Student misconceptions have been found in individuals at
all ages and in all scientific domains. In fact, these views have been shown to be

123

Teachers Understanding of Student Misconceptions

443

fairly predictable at specific age spans. One third of all teachers interviewed were
unable to produce even one example of a student misconception from their own
experiences, even after examples were provided. Teachers provided statements that
reflected student attitudes toward science, rather than specific science content that
students might have misconceptions about:
They think all science classes make volcanoes. (5.6)
I think students are afraid [of science] because the first thing most teachers do
is put up vocabulary words. Many of these words the students cannot even
pronounce. There a mental block is put up immediatelybefore a teacher has
even given the lesson. (4.1)
However, 57% of teachers interviewed were able to provide several examples of
misconceptions commonly found in their students. These examples tended to be
very specific and directly linked to the science content they teach: The moon
actually physically changes shape over time. It is malleable (3.3); Everything that
was living before now, like dinosaurs, was living at the same time (3.4); and
Evaporation means that water becomes air (3.6).
Research has shown that, if the students cognitive abilities are not mature
enough to understand the concept, the student will be unable to develop a correct
understanding of it, regardless of instruction (Stavy and Stachel 1985; Trowbridge
and Mintzes 1988). The teachers in the sample responded to curricular issues and
discussed the developmental levels of the grade. These types of examples provided
by teachers centered on concepts the teachers felt were beyond the developmental
level of that grade. These were usually abstract concepts, and the teachers
commented on the difficulty for young students to comprehend what they cannot see
and touch.
[Students] dont understand where things originate from. Things just pop out
of nowhere, and thats how they are. I asked them where hamburger comes
from, and half of them didnt know it came from a cow. (5.2)
They have trouble with the idea that things take a long time. They think they
can see glaciers move. You can see landslides on the news. They have a really
hard time understanding how water or wind can cause changes in a landform.
If there is a little hole in a rock, a big gust of wind came through and blew it
outand then you have a sea arch. (4.8)
things they cant touch. Basically, if they cant literally see it, they have a
really hard time getting it. Take electricity, they understand what it is, but they
dont understand where it comes from. It is too abstract. (4.10)
The teachers expressed concern over the developmental level of their students and
the content they were required to teach at that grade level. The examples provided
by the teachers were specific to the science standards assigned to the specific grade
level they taught. For example, fifth-grade teachers often discussed student
misconceptions that dealt with the states of matter while fourth-grade teachers
focused on earth processes, such as erosion.

123

444

S. Gomez-Zwiep

Origins of Misconceptions
Research has shown that misconceptions can develop both from external and
internal sources (Bar 1989; Bar and Travis 1991; Nussbaum 1979; Ross and Shuell
1993; Stavy and Satchel 1985). Teachers overwhelmingly attributed student
misconceptions to faulty or erroneous information that the child acquires from
external sources, the most common being parents and television (specifically,
cartoons). Other external sources of misconceptions included peers, computer
games, the Internet, and reading books.
[Students] get misconceptions from a combination of what they hear from
their relatives and the people around them and what they read in magazines
and newspapers. A lot of them get their ideas from what they see on television.
They see a talking head explaining things from the abstract. (5.7)
Sometimes parents have a limited formal education. In fact, by fifth grade,
many of my students have surpassed the formal education of their parents. (5.8)
Some of them are very Catholic, and there is a lot of legend mixed in with
their Catholicism. (5.8)
They watch a lot of TV. The cartoons show a lot of mad scientists and labs,
and I think that is as far as they can go. (4.8)
Many teachers saw school as a place where misconceptions are corrected as
students receive more information. However, teachers were also mentioned as a
means of contributing to misconceptions through poor instruction or a lack of
teacher content knowledge.
Students get misconceptions from the school setting in addition to teacher
instruction. Textbook pictures can be confusing. They show the Earth that
travels around the sun as an oval instead of a circle. (3.2)
They can get misconceptions from school by not providing background
knowledge when we try to teach science concepts that are too advanced for their
age. It assumes that all students enter class at the same level. They dont. (4.9)
It is also from bad science instruction from teachers. Science is not
particularly important to many teachers. It is not something you do naturally.
I am teaching them what I learned in school, which is an abstraction. So I give
them an abstractionthat they abstractthat gets even more warped. So
teachers disseminate misconceptions they have to their students. (5.7)
The teachers discussed misconceptions as something done to students via
incorrect information from the adults around them. When teachers discussed their
students own internal thinking processes, it was linked to knowledge gaps about a
concept.
Misconceptions depend on the actual teacher. If they are not being taught
science regularly, they miss out. They are not doing all the experiments that
they should at every grade level. If the prior knowledge is not there, they dont

123

Teachers Understanding of Student Misconceptions

445

understand what they are doing at that moment. If there are gaps in their
knowledge, they are missing the stepping stones they need. (5.5)
They come from a lack of exposure to science. My students really havent had
a lot of science taught to them. They really have no understanding of it. I am
finding they have little if any exposure (to science). (5.11)
They come from a lack of knowledge. I think if (science) is not being taught,
or not being taught correctly, there will be a big gap. And, if they miss those
building blocks, they will have misconceptions. (4.5)
There were three teachers in the sample who saw misconceptions originating
from the students own mental constructs. These teachers talked about these
misconceptions, not as a lack of understanding, but as an understanding that is
different than the scientifically accepted one.
They are fitting pieces of the puzzle together, but not realizing that they really
dont fit. For example, a misconception might be that, every time it rains, there
is a rainbow, based on their experiences. (4.6)
The children have formed their own ideas about science based on what they have
experiencedwithout any guidance, just how they are making sense of the
scientific world. I think they have their own deductive reasoning, and they use
what they know and apply it to what is going on. If there are holes, they try to fill it
in to make sense. Of course it is incorrect, but it makes them feel satisfied. (3.6)
In general, most teachers (57%) are aware that students will have misconceptions
about science concepts. In fact, teachers, by and large, were able to recall several
examples of common misconceptions they had seen in their own students. Teachers
suggested that misconceptions originate from three sources. First, misconceptions
develop from stories passed on to students from their parents, friends, or television
and movies. Second, misconceptions are poor explanations, rather than ones that
contradict accepted scientific theory. Third, misconceptions develop when the
concept is beyond the developmental level of the student. However, only three of
the teachers in the sample (10%) discussed how students own thinking and mental
constructs contribute to student misconceptions. The majority of the teachers
described misconceptions as something that results from external sources, rather
than originating in the students own thinking.
Misconceptions and Instruction
Planning Instruction
During the first part of the interview, 43% of teachers interviewed were unable to
remember even one example of a misconception their students had expressed. It is
not surprising that these teachers would later affirm that they do not think about
possible misconceptions during planning or while teaching. However, several
teachers interviewed were able to recall seeing several student misconceptions
within the content they teach. This might suggest that these teachers would predict

123

446

S. Gomez-Zwiep

that future students would also have similar misconceptions, and this might lead
them to consider misconceptions prior to teaching a lesson. Of the 30 teachers
interviewed, 19 stated that they have not considered student misconceptions while
planning science lessons.
I can honestly say that I dont think about this [misconceptions] while planning.
I do think about ELL [English language learners] strategies. But, just today, I
was walking around looking at what my students wrote about our activity, and I
saw that there were some misconceptions in what the kids wrote. (3.6)
I dont think I thought about them. I thought if I were going to teach it, they
would get it. So, they wont have misconceptions. (3.3)
I dont think about (misconceptions) at all. It just isnt practical. (5.7)
Of the teachers who stated that they consider misconceptions prior to instruction,
all but two described some means of tapping into prior knowledge, such as a K-W-L
chart or other graphic organizer of prior knowledge (Ausubel 1968; Novak 2002).
These teachers used the information gathered from their students to make decisions
about where to begin the instruction or whether or not to review information they
had assumed the students already knew
I try to get at prior knowledge first. I cant teach something if they dont have
the prior knowledge that is needed. (4.9)
I try to tap into their prior knowledge and share that information, because
other students might have different responses. (5.3)
I dont know that I consider misconceptions. I ask them what they know, like
with a quick write, and then plan from there. Ill put some vocabulary on the
board and ask them to tell me what they know about them. (5.9)
Of the entire sample of teachers interviewed, only two individuals discussed
instructional strategies beyond identifying prior knowledge or ignoring misconceptions all together. One teacher, who had 5 years teaching experience, said she
thinks about what her own misconceptions were at that age to help her predict what
misconceptions her students may have. However, although this knowledge factored
into the initial planning of the lesson, it did not impact instruction once the unit had
begun. Another teacher, who had only 2 years experience, said she thinks of the
student responses she expects during the lesson as a way to gauge student
understanding during the lesson. In this case, if the expected student responses were
not achieved during the lesson, it was an indication to the teacher that the students
had not interpreted the lesson as she had intended, and she would go back and
reteach some information. This was true of only one teacher in the entire sample.
Instructional Techniques to Address Student Misconceptions
Various methods have been shown to be successful in addressing misconceptions
(Eryilmaz 2002; Guzzetti 2000; Tsai 2003). Regardless of the strategy, most methods
include initiating some type of cognitive conflict within the learner between his or

123

Teachers Understanding of Student Misconceptions

447

her expectations based on a misconception and the actual observations presented.

When discussing what instructional strategies might be used to help students address
their misconceptions, teachers were generally optimistic about their ability to
mediate a misconception. There was a great variety in the strategies offered by the
teachers, including the use of videos, books, field trips, and eliciting prior knowledge.
Experimentation was the most frequently mentioned method of moving students
toward a more scientific understanding of a concept. Twenty of the 30 teachers
interviewed mentioned some form of investigation or experimentation as a necessary
part of dislodging a misconception.
I would use hands-on experiments. It took longer to get through the stuff, but
the kids understood it better. (4.3)
I dont know that misconceptions affect the success of a lesson. I think you have
to add at lot of hands on so they can see what their misconceptions are. (5.8)
We do experiments, inquiry-based learning. They might believe something;
then you do an experiment, and they alter their belief. After numerous
experiences, we build them to that understanding. They need to see it; they
need to experience itgetting their hands wet. (3.6)
One third of the teachers also discussed questioning techniques as a means of
correcting student misconceptions. Questioning was discussed as a way to help
students work out what they personally thought of the scientific view of the concept.
Questioning ranged from simple guiding questions from the teacher to the student to
eliciting extensive explanations from the student about an experiment.
I would use questioning techniques. So what do you think it looks like?
Have them prove itprove to me that it isnt what they thought. Show me
evidence. (3.3)
Let them go ahead with their misconceptions, prove themselves right or
wrong, and then discuss it with themselves. If it doesnt come out, then I will
just get up and tell them. But it is better that they teach each other, rather than
hearing it from me. (3.7)
As you proceed, you ask questions that will force them to notice that what they
thought would happen doesnt. (5.8)
One teacher offered this response to dealing with misconceptions:
I would ask [students] to try and justify their belief. That way they can see that
their belief is incorrect. I know when you learn something it is really hard to
unlearn itso maybe, if they could find it on their own, with my guidance,
with lots of questioning. (5.1)
When she was asked how long she thought this would take, she replied, I dont
think it will take that long. Two lessons and they will finally figure out that this is
wrong or this is more believable (5.1).
Eight of the teachers (26%) interviewed felt confident that students simply
needed clarification about their ideas. These teachers all stated that the method they

123

448

S. Gomez-Zwiep

use for addressing student misconceptions was to tell them what the real explanation
is. These teachers also spoke of the open mindedness of young children, possibly
mistaking the wish to please the teacher with genuine comprehension.
Sometimes I will explain it to them and reexplain it to them, giving more
examples or visualsor sometimes I just tell them. (5.6)
I dont think their misconceptions have that much to do with my lessons. My
kids are so open minded that if you tell them, then they say, OK, I now agree
with you. They are so open minded to change. (4.10)
It is convincing them what it is all about, that they can do it. They will be more
willing to accept what I tell them. (5.11)
There were some teachers who felt that no level of instruction could mediate a
misconception.
It depends of the curiosity of the student. It depends on the background of the
student. If the student is shuffling through the day from 8 to 3, I dont think
there is any desire on the part of the student to dislodge the misconception. You
are talking about a sophisticated intellectual question that has no application to
the student. They are just trying to get through the day. (5.7)
This statement was the only response that seemed to realistically address the
resistant nature of misconceptions. Misconceptions have been proven to be highly
resistant to change, especially if the student does not see the relevance for adapting
his or her personal explanation (Posner et al. 1982; Tao and Gunstone 1999).
Impact of Instruction on Students Misconceptions
The teachers were asked about how misconceptions develop in students as they
grow and mature. This question was designed to gauge how teachers viewed
misconceptions: Are they fixed understandings or do they adjust as the students
cognitive abilities develop? We know from the literature that some misconceptions
do correct themselves as individuals develop more complex cognitive abilities. In
fact, if the students cognitive ability is not mature enough to understand the
concept, a clear and rational explanation will not produce a conceptual
understanding in the student (Stavy and Satchel 1985; Trowbridge and Mintzes
1988). However, this may not be obvious to an elementary teacher who only sees
students of one age, day after day, year after year.
Generally, teachers stated that misconceptions would stay with an individual if it
was not addressed by further instruction, either in school or motivated by the
students self-interest. This was linked to their comments concerning gaps in
knowledge and how they contribute to student misconceptions. Many teachers
showed concern that, if students did not receive adequate science instruction in the
future, their misconceptions would solidify.
As students get older, their misconceptions become calcified. There are
misconceptions piled on top of misconceptions. (5.7)

123

Teachers Understanding of Student Misconceptions

449

They become facts to them. If they dont learn the correct way or the right
way, it gets harder to unlearn it. If they have an interest, they might go back. If
they are learning something else, they might go back to something they had
learnedthey will discover it by accident. (4.5)
Many teachers viewed misconceptions to be more malleable in younger students.
Thus, if a misconception is not addressed while the student is young, the errors
become more difficult to correct as the child gets older. This contradicts what we
know about the cognitive development within an individual. This was tied to the
knowledge that they themselves held misconceptions and lacked confidence in their
science content background. However, teachers stated that they were confident that,
if misconceptions are addressed in some future class, they will be corrected: It just
depends on the actual next teacher, grade or class environment. If they are not being
taught science regularly, they miss out, if they are not doing all the experiments that
they should at every grade level (5.5). Another teacher said, The only things that
get clarified are the things that are taught and brought up. The other things are just
put in the back of their head (5.2). Teachers interviewed said that once students
reach high school science classes, they would have their misconceptions corrected.
It was not clear if this belief was based on the expertise of the high school teacher or
the guaranteed frequency of a class devoted solely to science. Other teachers felt
that students would correct their misconceptions on their own, based on interest and
personal motivation: Their misconceptions are clarified. As they get older, they get
more intrigued and interested and want to know more. So, they ask more questions
(5.1). Further, I think they get redefined. They get more accurate information.
They will read a textbook or something (5.6). Only one teacher in the sample
actually addressed the cognitive ability of students and how that factors into their
ability to fully understand concepts. This teacher had been teaching for 10 years: I
think [students] start to realize that some of it is not true. Their logic kicks in around
fifth grade, and they dont hold onto all [the misconceptions] 5.8.
Although several teachers discussed the ability or inability of their students to
comprehend abstract concepts when discussing common misconceptions, most did
not return to this conversation when discussing how misconceptions change as
students mature. Despite several follow-up questions pressing the cognitive level of
students, most teachers did not consider this a factor in student misconceptions. The
teachers only considered additional science instruction as a factor in the
development of misconceptions in students as they matured. This may be due to
the fact that the vast majority of teachers interviewed did not have experience with
students beyond sixth grade and had little experience to draw on concerning the
cognitive ability of older students.

Discussion
Past research has shown that preservice teachers may have misconceptions
themselves; are often unaware of student misconceptions; and, even if aware of
misconceptions, may not adjust their teaching strategies to address them (Halim and

123

450

S. Gomez-Zwiep

Meerah 2002). In addition, research has also shown that preservice teachers only
consider students prior conceptions to identify where there are gaps in their prior
knowledge and then add new knowledge to it (Meyer 2004). This study confirms
and broadens these findings for teachers across a wide range of teaching experience.
Although the teachers in the sample were generally aware of student misconceptions, the teachers responses indicate that they do not consider misconceptions
beyond using prior knowledge as a means of determining the starting point of their
lesson.
The findings from this study suggest that teachers are generally aware of
misconceptions, although not every teacher was able to provide a definition of a
misconception. While they may be familiar with the term, a large percentage (43%)
of teachers did not completely understand misconceptions or could not describe
examples from their teaching experience. Misconceptions were seen as something
that develops from TV and other media, peers, and family, in addition to inside the
classroom, often from poor instruction. It has been well documented that students
have well-defined views of the world, based on their encounters with the natural
world before ever entering formal education (Bar and Travis 1991; Eryilmaz 2002).
However, the teachers interviewed also underappreciated the learning gained from
personal experiences. In fact, during the interviews, several teachers stated that they
didnt think students thought about science outside of formal instruction.
The teachers interviewed had a limited understanding of the term misconception. Misconceptions were often described as gaps in knowledge that need to be
filled. Their flawed understanding of the term and the connection that some teachers
made between a misconception and a misunderstanding may lead them to
underestimate how deeply rooted a misconception can be in student thinking. The
children are not simply lacking information about a science concept; they have
developed their own explanation for it. Although the majority of teachers gave an
appropriate example of a misconception, they referred to a misconception as student
confusion that simply needed more information to dispel that confusion. In addition,
teachers described misconceptions as something that develops arbitrarily, based on
whatever incorrect information is received from family, peers, or the media.
Thus, although teachers are generally aware of misconceptions, their view of
misconceptions as gaps or confusion may lead teachers to ignore misconceptions
once instruction begins. Teachers primarily stated that they address misconceptions
using strategies to identify prior knowledge. Teachers discussed using some type of
graphic organizer, such as a what I know, what I want to know, what I learned
(K-W-L) chart, similar to the type of advance organizers suggested by Ausubel
(1968) and Novak (2002). For the teachers in this study, assessing student
knowledge is done at the beginning of a lesson to identify gaps in this knowledge so
these gaps can be filled prior to the next lesson. Teachers tended to describe
knowledge building as a linear process. The students would begin with what
knowledge they had, and, through instruction, additional knowledge would be built
upon it. The teachers did not consider the possibility that misconceptions are tied to
broader understandings and knowledge in students. Thus, the teachers did not
consider students misconceptions as something that would require instruction to be
altered once the gaps in knowledge were addressed. Hence, considering

123

Teachers Understanding of Student Misconceptions

451

misconceptions during planning seemed to mean acknowledging student thinking at

the beginning of the lesson only.
The majority of the teachers assumed that their general instructional strategies
would be sufficient to mediate misconceptions. The teachers did not have particular
strategies specifically designed for misconceptions. This may be due again to their
view that misconceptions develop from poor instruction or a lack of instruction. Halim
and Meerah (2002) found that preservice teachers often restated their own
understanding of a concept, rather than use their knowledge of teaching when
explaining a problem to students. Several teachers in this sample also felt the best
method for addressing misconceptions is to tell the student why their own idea is
wrong. Another set of teachers felt that, if students complete an experiment, the
misconception will be obvious to the students and the misconception will be mediated.
Both groups were confident that all students need is a lesson with correct information.
Many of the teachers interviewed believed that students need to experiment to
build their own understanding of the concept. However, they seemed to assume that
there is only one way to interpret these experiences and the intended result will be
obvious to the students. Few teachers were able to elaborate on the role of
experiments in dislodging misconceptions. With only one exception, the teachers
interviewed felt that providing the hands-on experiments alone would be sufficient
for students to correct their misconception. The teachers were unaware that students
may interpret information from an experiment differently than intended; the
knowledge that is obvious to the teacher may not be to a student. Windschitl (2002)
found that teachers use activities for the sake of the activity, overestimating the
students ability to construct meaning from the activity. This study found similar
results. Although the teachers advocated constructivist strategies that allow students
to make sense of their misconceptions, such as hands-on activities and experiments,
they would later fall back on the traditional teaching view that, if you tell a student a
concept, they will internalize and comprehend it. This presents a clear disconnect
from the recommendations of National Science Education Standards for hands-on,
minds-on activities (National Research Council 1996). Teachers need to provide
experiences where students are not just handling materials, but are formulating
questions about their observations, discussing their observations with their teacher
and their peers, planning further investigations, and being assessed in ways that are
consistent with this type of active approach to learning. Hands-on activities are not
enough for students to have meaningful learning experiences.
Posner et al. (1982) suggested a conceptual change process that has been used as
a standard model on which other strategies are based. The conceptual change
process involves not only making the individual aware of his or her misconception,
but also involves causing the individual to become dissatisfied with his or her
previous notion through experiences and teacher guidance specifically designed to
cause conflict between the misconception and their observations. However, the
teachers interviewed did not consider the connection between the identification of
the specific misconception and the activities used to address them. The selection of
specific activities that would confront misconceptions, such as a discrepant event,
was never mentioned. Including the students in the discussion of their own

123

452

S. Gomez-Zwiep

misconceptions was also not considered necessary. Although the teachers discussed
hands-on activities, they were never specifically designed to target a misconception.
The findings discussed here suggest that, although there is a tremendous amount
of literature regarding student misconceptions, it has not filtered down to the
everyday world of the classroom. This evidence from this study indicates that, while
aware that misconceptions exist, teachers are not attentive to their impact on
instruction. Seeing that misconceptions have been shown to be prevalent and
predictable and can interfere with the processing of new information, teachers need
to be aware of the instructional implications and the strategies designed to address
misconceptions. Exposing teachers to student misconceptions in their teacher
preparation course through example and definition is not enough to ensure that they
will be adequately prepared to address them in their own class. In addition, the
teachers included in this sample covered a range of teaching experience from 1 to
30 years; this suggests that the ability to address misconceptions does not
necessarily develop with experience.
The results of this study have implications beyond the issue of science
misconceptions. There is the larger issue of if and how teachers consider student
thinking in their instruction in general. The findings from this study suggest that,
although teachers may endorse the use of hands-on activities, they may not consider
how students will interpret their experiences or if the experiences will add up to
their instructional expectations. The teachers interviewed also did not discuss
altering instruction in response to how their students performed. Although many
teachers discussed the misconceptions they see in students year after year, they did
not consider checking for student understanding regarding these misconceptions
once their lesson had begun. Consequently, teachers may simply move ahead in
their instruction without reflecting on what evidence they have about what their
students know to adapt the next lesson or lessons for future use.
Quality science instruction is more that developing the lessons and experiments.
Teachers need to constantly assess their students understanding of the content
before, during and after these lessons to make instructional decisions that will best
meet the needs of their students. This is true of all science content, but it is
especially vital for concepts that students may have misconceptions about.
Understanding how to elicit student feedback and adapt during instruction, based
on this feedback, should be a primary goal of any teacher preparation program.
However, this ability also develops with experience. Therefore it is also a topic
relevant to teacher professional development.

Suggestions for Future Research

This research sheds light on what the typical elementary teacher knows about the
nature of misconceptions and how they address them in their instruction. While
many studies have identified student misconceptions and evaluated instructional
strategies, few have provided any insight into the teacher who is faced with them in
the classroom. As this study was primarily explorative in nature, there remain
numerous questions that need to be addressed. Additional research is needed

123

Teachers Understanding of Student Misconceptions

453

regarding teachers who teach science as a content specialist. Content specialists in

elementary school often teach the same lesson multiple times in one day, while an
elementary teacher may have to wait an entire year before presenting the same lesson
again. Does the opportunity to teach a lesson several times within a short window of
time make for a teacher more adept at addressing misconceptions? Similar to an
elementary science specialist, high school and middle school teachers will also teach
science to multiple classes in a single day. However, a high school science teacher
will often have stronger content background than an elementary teacher and may
have a different perspective on student misconceptions. The sample used for this
study was comprised entirely of elementary teacherswho rarely hold a degree in
science. More research is needed on how content knowledge factors into a teachers
ability to address misconceptions in the classroom. This study also leads to questions
regarding the way teachers are planning their instruction in general. Teachers with
limited expertise in planning science lessons may be limited in their ability to
address misconceptions in their instruction. Similarly, teachers with limited
expertise in assessment may also be limited in their ability to measure the
effectiveness of their instruction in developing student understanding.
The most glaring gap in the research is what techniques are most effective at
improving a teachers ability to address student misconceptions. This issue has not
been investigated sufficiently in the areas of teacher preparation or professional
development. The results of the study and of previous research (Halim and Meerah
2002; Meyer 2004) suggest that teachers are not prepared to confront science
misconceptions when they arise in their classrooms, even if the teachers recognize
that such misconceptions exist. So how do we move teachers toward this
understanding? Is it necessary to discuss misconceptions in preservice education?
Does this issue need to be addressed as part of professional development? Does
awareness develop only when both preservice and professional development are
included? Further research is necessary to understand what methods can improve a
teachers ability to deal with student misconceptions.
Finally, the results reported here suggest that teachers may not consider how
students are interpreting and integrating new content to guide their instruction.
Rather, teachers look for gaps in the prerequisite knowledge and go forward, rarely
looking back for reasons beyond the final assessment. Further data is needed on how
teachers are monitoring how their students are interpreting their science activities
and how this relates to their students misconceptions.

References
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bar, V. (1989). Childrens views about the water cycle. Science Education, 73, 481500.
Bar, V., & Travis, A. S. (1991). Childrens views concerning phase changes. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 28, 363382.
Bar, V., Zinn, B., Goldmuntz, R., & Sneider, C. (1994). Childrens concepts about weight and free fall.
Science Education, 78, 149169.
Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., & Baur, M. E. (1993). Students preconceptions of the nature of gases.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 587597.

123

454

S. Gomez-Zwiep

Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to process: A theory of conceptual
change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 2743.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students
misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39, 10011015.
Gabel, D. L., Stockton, J. D., Monaghan, D. L., & MaKinster, J. G. (2001). Changing childrens
conceptions of burning. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 439451.
Guzzetti, B. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a
decade of research? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 8998.
Halim, L., & Meerah, S. M. (2002). Science trainee teachers pedagogical content knowledge and its
influence on physics teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20, 215225.
Hesse, J., & Anderson, C. (1992). Students conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 29, 277299.
Hewson, M., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Effect of instruction using students prior knowledge and conceptual
change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, S86S98.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers conceptions of learners prior knowledge. Science
Education, 88, 970983.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or
inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86,
584571.
Nussbaum, J. (1979). Childrens conceptions of the earth as a cosmic body: A cross age study. Science
Education, 63, 8393.
Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Childrens conception of the changes in the state of water.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 825838.
Pine, K., Messer, D., & St. John, K. (2001). Childrens misconceptions in primary science: A survey of
teachers views. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19, 7996.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211277.
Ross, K. E., & Shuell, T. J. (1993). Childrens beliefs about earthquakes. Science Education, 77, 191205.
Schmidt, H. (1997). Students misconceptions: Looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81, 123135.
Sequeira, M., & Leite, L. (1991). Alternative conceptions and history of science in physics teacher
education. Science Education, 75, 4556.
Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of
knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115163.
Sneider, C., & Ohadi, M. (1998). Unraveling students misconceptions about the Earths shape and
gravity. Science Education, 82, 265284.
Southerland, S., Abrams, E., Cummins, C., & Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding students explanations
of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Science Education, 85, 328348.
Stavy, R., & Stachel, D. (1985). Childrens conceptions of change in the state of matter: From solid
and liquid. Archives de Psychologie, 53, 331344.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tao, P., & Gunstone, R. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computersupported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 859882.
Trend, R. D. (2001). Deep time framework: A preliminary study. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38, 191221.
Trowbridge, J. E., & Mintzes, J. J. (1988). Alternative conceptions in animal classification: A cross age
study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 547571.
Tsai, C. (2003). Using a conflict map and an instructional tool to change student alternative conceptions
in simple series electric-circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 307327.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of
the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of
Educational Research, 72, 131175.

123