Alternate Conceptions of Preservice Elementary Teachers: The Itakura Method

Journal of Science Teacher Education volume 19, pages417–435(2008)Cite this article

Abstract

In this study, we determined the effectiveness of the inquiry-based Itakura method for mediating alternate conceptions of preservice elementary teachers (N = 38) in an integrated mathematics, science, and technology methods course. We investigated alternate conceptions in the expansion of solids due to heating. There was a significant increase in participants’ immediate learning gains after participating in the Itakura method. Retention data was gathered after 1, 2, and 3 months. After 3 months, retention levels dropped slightly, but not significantly. Responses revealed that the majority of the participants did not revert back to alternate conceptions after 3 months.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks online. Retrieved April 3, 2007, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch4/ch4.htm#D_M.

  2. Cakiroglu, J., & Boone, W. J. (2001). Preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their conceptions of photosynthesis and inheritance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Champagne, A., Klopfer, L., & Anderson, J. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Children’s misconceptions about science. (1998). American Institute of Physics: Operation Physics. Retrieved May 15, 2005, from http://www.amasci.com/miscon/opphys.html.

  6. Crockett, C. (2004). What do kids know and misunderstand about science? Educational Leadership, 2, 34–47.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davis, J. (2001). Conceptual change. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 3, 2007, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ConceptualChange.htm.

  9. Driver, R. D., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gómez Crespo, M. A., & Pozo, J. I. (2004). Relationships between everyday knowledge and scientific knowledge: Understanding how matter changes. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1325–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hewson, P. W., & Thorley, N. R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hsi, S. (1997). Facilitating knowledge integration in science through electronic discussion: The multimedia forum kiosk. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from http://www.concord.org/~sherry/dissertation/.

  16. IIDA, Y. (1991). How to form a scientific concept? Symposium conducted at the 2nd International Conference of Physics Education, Fuji, Japan. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://homepage3.nifty.com/yoiidea/english/91,92Fuji&hungenglish/91,92Fuji&hungenglish.htm.

  17. Itakura, K. (1967). Instruction and learning of concept “force” in static based on kasetsi–jikken–jiggo (hypothesis–experiment–instruction): A new model of teaching science. Bulletin of National Institute for Educational Research, 52, 1–121.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jarvis, T., Pell, A., & McKeon, F. (2003). Changes in primary teachers’ science knowledge and understanding during a two-year inservice program. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21(1), 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kearney, M., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. G. (2001). Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predict–observe–explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science Education, 31, 589–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Khalid, T. (2001). Preservice teachers’ misconceptions regarding three environmental issues. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 6, 102–120.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Klammer, J. (1998). An overview of techniques for identifying, acknowledging, and overcoming alternate conceptions in physics education. 1997–98 Klingenstein Paper Project, Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Korthagen, F. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kusnick, J. (2002). Growing pebbles and conceptual prisms: Understanding the source of student misconceptions about rock formation. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(1), 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner, & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lewis, E. L., & Linn, M. C. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: Implications for curricular improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 657–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liggitt-Fox, J. D. (1997). Fighting student misconceptions: Three effective strategies. Science Scope, 20(5), 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lindgren, J. (2003). Why we have seasons and other common misconceptions. Science Scope, 26(4), 50–51.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mysteries of science: Expansion and contraction—A review. (2005). Gary’s electronic classroom: TEAMS educational resources. Retrieved January 06, 2005, from http://teams.lacoe.edu/documentation/classrooms/gary/heat/activities/mystery/Mystery.html.

  31. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1994). Learning science: The implications of children’s science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25, 323–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rowe M. B. (Ed.). (1990). What research says to the science teacher: The process of knowing. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Saxena, A. B. (1991). The understanding of the properties of light by students in India. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 283–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schoon, K. J. (1995). The origin and extent of alternative conceptions in the earth and space sciences: A survey of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 7(2), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sewell, A. (2002). Constructivism and student misconceptions: Why every teacher needs to know about them. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(4), 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Smith, E. L. (1990). A conceptual change model of learning science. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), Psychology of the learning science (pp. 43–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Smith, E. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1984). Plants as producers: A case study of elementary science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 685–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Smith, J. P., DiSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Stigler, W. J., & Hiebert, J. (1998). Teaching is a cultural activity. American Educator, 22(4), 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Stofflett, R. T. (1994). Conceptual change in elementary school teacher candidate knowledge of rock-cycle processes. Journal of Geological Education, 42, 494–500.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl, & R. Hilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Taber, K. S. (2003). Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learner’s prior learning. Science Education, 87, 732–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 633–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental model of the Earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., & Ikospentaki, K. (2004). Modes of knowing and ways of reasoning in elementary astronomy. Cognitive Development, 19, 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Watson, B. (1994). Switch off kids’ science misconceptions. Learning, 22(5), 74–76.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Yuruk, N., Ozdemir, O., & Beeth, M. E. (2003). The role of metacognition in facilitating conceptual change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Department of Elementary Education, State University of New York at New Paltz, 800 Hawk Drive, New Paltz, NY, 12561-2442, USA

    Aaron D. Isabelle

  2. School of Education, University of Rhode Island, 709 Chafee, Kingston, RI, 02881, USA

    Cornelis de Groot

Authors
  1. Aaron D. Isabelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cornelis de Groot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron D. Isabelle.

Appendices

Appendix A: Preassessment (P) and Immediate Postassessment (PA0)

figurea

Appendix B: 1-, 2-, and 3-Month Postassessment (PA1, PA2, PA3)

figureb

About this article

Cite this article

Isabelle, A.D., de Groot, C. Alternate Conceptions of Preservice Elementary Teachers: The Itakura Method. J Sci Teacher Educ 19, 417–435 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9105-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Preservice Teacher
  • Conceptual Change
  • Alternate Conception
  • Preservice Elementary Teacher
  • Bridge Girder