Childrens Views of Science

Assignment One

Tarryn Fisher 21158408.

Section One Determining Prior Knowledge: In teaching any subject, determining the students prior knowledge before teaching is very important to effectively plan any and all units of teaching and to ensure the content be taught to tailor the students learning needs (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). When obtaining prior knowledge it is not only important to ask children what their ideas are, but to ask them to provide you with evidence of how they know this to be true, even if the idea they present is not a scientific concept (Skamp., 2007). This gives you an indication of how they are thinking and what scientific and alternate concepts they hold in their ideas. It is important to determine this prior knowledge through allowing the children to express their ideas in hands-on activities, particularly for younger children as it creates engagement and allows them to apply their knowledge in different situations (Darling., 2012). Questioning the children and asking for evidence of why they believe certain ideas can place them in a position where they need to examine their beliefs and reflect upon their understanding of the concept, which may enable them to formulate their ideas and possibly see situations where their ideas do not apply (Skamp., 2007). Determining childrens prior knowledge is also advantageous as it allows identification of areas where they may hold alternate, rather then scientific conceptions on a particular subject. The use of hands-on activities is not only engaging for children but advantageous for teachers, as many find it hard to predict what misconceptions their students may have (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). It is possible that alternate conceptions, particularly physics related ones, are intuitively formed and therefore research into childrens prior knowledge of scientific topics is vital to ensure that the childs educational instruction is related to their knowledge and prior conceptions (Wilkening & Huber., 2002). The science topic selected for this assignment was the topic of gravity. Two year 5 students, Luke and Matthew (pseudonyms), both aged nine, were interviewed on this topic.

Section Two Information on the Topic of Gravity: The topic of Gravity is one that is important to children in their everyday life; they can identify it as the force which brings them back to Earth when they jump with a skipping rope or on a trampoline (Darling., 2012). A force is a push or a full which can cause an object to move, stop, change direction or change speed (Darling., 2012). Gravity is thought of as a field force, as it does not contact the object it acts upon, such as friction acting on an object would, instead it surrounds the object. (Skamp., 2007). Scientifically, the idea of gravity is a fundamental aspect of physics, and is explored at great depth through Newtons theory of gravity, and added to by Einsteins theory of relativity, which is why it is a key area of learning in science throughout both primary and high school years (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). The term gravity is not mentioned in the Australian Curriculum: Science until year 7, however it is looked at from approximately year 2 in the physical sciences strand when investigating push and pull forces (ACARA., 2012). In primary school, the term gravity is not necessarily the most important aspect for students to learn, it is more important that they should learn that it is a pulling force that can act on objects from a distance and can make things fall (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). Without looking at the concept in depth near to that of Newton or Einstein, gravity is a pulling force; it pulls things towards the centre of the Earth (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). The force of gravity, or gravitational pull, is an invisible force such, as magnetism, but differs in that gravitational pull is not as strong but can work over much longer, even infinite, distances. This can be demonstrated by the fact that gravitational pull exists between planets and stars over large distances within space (Woodford., 2004). However, it should be noted that as the distance between the objects increases the gravitational pull decreases quickly (Cain., 2009). Gravitational pull between planets and the Sun is one of the foundations of the Solar System and one of the reasons that the Solar System stays in a particular shape, the

orbit of the planets around the Sun can be likened to that of a ball on a roulette wheel spinning around the centre of gravity (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). Gravitational force is related to mass, the more mass something has the more gravitational force it will exert, which is why the Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way around (Woodford., 2004). Mass is the amount of matter within an object and never changes, as opposed to an objects weight, which changes depending on the forces, such as gravitational pull, acting on it (Allen., 2010). Although mass and weight are not the same, under a constant gravitational force, such as that exerted on Earth, the weight of an object will be proportional to its mass, the larger the mass the heavier it weighs ( Wilkening & Huber., 2002). For example, one cubic metre of lead will weigh more than one cubic metre of aluminium, as it has heavier particles and these particles are more tightly packed, giving it a larger mass, as seen in Figure 1 (Allen., 2010). The distance between objects will also influence the gravitational pull; the closer the objects the stronger the pull (Woodford., 2004). Gravitational force is exerted by all objects, large ones such as the gravitational pull the Earth has to the people on it, or small ones, such as the pull between two blocks of metal (Woodford., 2004). In the case of the two metal blocks, if they were on Earth, although they have gravitational pull, this force is overcome by the larger pull that is the Earth pulling them to it (Allen., 2010). On the Earth it is not only objects which are pulled towards the centre of the Earth, gravity also ensures
Figure 1: Two cubes of different metals will weigh different amounts and have different masses, even though they are the same size. In this case, as the iron has more mass than the aluminium it would have more gravitational pull than the aluminium. This diagram was taken from Allen (2010) p 138.

that the Earths atmosphere does not escape (Nardelli, Saffin & Taylor., 2003). Although gravitational pull draws people to the centre of the Earth, as you get further from the centre of the Earth the pull decreases, for example at the top of Mt Everest there is 0.28% less gravity, which although is small continues to decrease until there is 90% less gravity when at the International Space Station (Cain., 2009). It is important to note that although the gravitational pull decreases throughout the atmosphere, gravity is not caused by or related to the atmosphere. It was Isaac Newton who provided an explanation of gravity after he famously observed an apple falling from a tree (Woodford., 2004). As previously explained, all objects have gravitational pull, so in the case of the apple it is not only the apple being pulled to the Earth, the apple is also exerting its own gravitational pull on the Earth, but in this case its pull is too small to measure so it appears that the Earth is the only object with gravitational pull (Woodford., 2004). This difference between the gravitational pull of a person for example, as compared to that of the Earth means that a person can fall into the Earth due to the gravitational pull of the Earth, but the reverse does not occur. It is true that objects of different mass will have different gravitational force acting on them, however this force acting on them does not increase the acceleration of the object when it is falling, so if two items are dropped from the same height, they will land on the ground at the same time (assuming that air resistance is not present) (Allen.,2010). This relates to another force, that of inertia, so although there is more gravitational pull on the heavier object, it also requires more energy to move it, and will still land at the same time as a lighter object dropped from the same height, as seen in Figure 2 (Allen., 2010). The pull of gravity towards the centre of the Earth on people means that we are constantly falling towards the centre of the Earth, however the Earths surface keeps us from continual free fall into the Earths centre (Cain., 2009).

Sports are a good example of the different forces acting upon people due to gravity (Nardelli, Saffin & Taylor., 2003) and one way in which gravity can be explained to students Gravity sporting in is younger present in such grades. many as

Figure 2: objects with a different mass will still land simultaneously. There is more gravity acing on the heavier object, but it also takes more force to make it move, which balances out and means that the objects of different mass will fall at the same time and lad simultaneously (provided that is no air resistance and they are dropped from the same height. The diagram was taken from Allen (2010) p124.

activities

skydiving, which involves free fall, to rock climbing (moving up against the force of gravity), to activities such as surfing, which requires balance between gravity and other forces. An example is the gravitational pull on the surfer onto the board equalling the forces such as buoyancy pushing up on the board and surfer, which means the surfer is able to balance and stay on the board (Nardelli, Saffin & Taylor., 2003).

Section Three Alternate Conceptions Relating to Gravity: Alternate conceptions can perpetuate from a number of sources such as poor teaching, intuitive assumptions, mis-representation of a scientific concept in the community or even the students mis-understanding a scientific concept and formulating their own conceptions about how things happen (Skamp., 2007). There are numerous alternate conceptions related to physics based concepts such as gravity. Some alternate conceptions in relation to gravity are; (1) there is no gravity on the Moon, (2)

gravity is part of the Earths atmosphere, (3) heavier objects fall faster than light objects from the same height, (4) objects have more gravity on them when they are dropped from a higher height, and (5) objects at rest have no gravity acting upon them. The alternate conception that there is no gravity on the Moon links with another alternate conception that gravity is part of the Earths atmosphere, gravitational pull comes from the atmosphere and therefore finishes at the surface of the Earth (Gilbert & Watts., 1983). This relates to gravity on the Moon because if the learner believes that gravitational pull is caused by the atmosphere then, as the Moon has no atmosphere, it therefore also has no gravity (Gilbert & Watts., 1983). The alternate conception that there is no gravity on the Moon has perpetuated through the many images of weightlessness in space provided through science fiction films and other popular culture outlets that children may be exposed to such as books and television shows (Allen., 2010). Although popular culture suggests otherwise, there is gravity on the Moon, however as the properties of mass and gravitational force are related and the Moons mass is less than the Earths the gravitational pull is therefore less. The Moon has only 17% of the mass of the Earth, which means it has only 17% of the same gravitational pull at its surface (Allen., 2010). As there is less gravitational pull on astronauts on the Moon, they are able to jump higher and bound further than they are able to on Earth, which may be one of the reasons for the idea that there is no gravity on the Moon, as the astronauts are not seen to be pulled to the surface in the same way they do on Earth (Allen., 2010). Historically, it was thought by philosophers such as Aristotle that the speed at which something falls is proportional to its weight (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). This has been proved scientifically incorrect, but is still often held as an alternate conception relating to gravity and free-fall (Allen., 2010). Studies into students in a US first-year college physics degree showed that 4 out of 5 students, even at tertiary level of study and having taken

physics at high school, still held this alternate conception (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). The widespread belief and tenacity with which this conception perseveres, demonstrates why it is important to teach these conceptions scientifically in primary school, rather than allow the alternate conception to predominate throughout schooling. This particular alternate conception is held because it appears that the heavier of the two items being dropped has more gravity acting upon its larger mass (Allen., 2010). A learner who holds this conception is likely to believe that as an object increases in mass the amount of gravity acting on it also increases, which affects its acceleration (Allen., 2010). This idea, that heavier object will have more gravity acting upon it is scientifically correct, however it also requires more energy to make it move, which means these forces cancel each other out, resulting in it landing at the same time to the lighter object (Naylor and Keogh., 2000). It is also important to note that in some cases the opposite alternate conception is held, that lighter objects, such as a feather, will fall quicker as they have less air resistance when falling (Allen., 2010). The alternate conception that objects dropped from a higher height have more gravity acting on them than objects dropped from lower heights comes from stories such as if one drops a coin from the top of a skyscraper and it hit someone it would kill them (Allen., 2010). The conception that there is more gravity acting on objects if they are higher in the Earths atmosphere, which therefore gives them more force when dropped is incorrect, as it is actually the weight of the object which causes the acceleration and force with which the object lands (Allen, 2010). Scientifically, the higher and further out of Earths atmosphere you get the less you weigh (for example if you are on an aeroplane you weigh less), which is the opposite of what people with the alternate conception believe (Allen., 2010). The final alternate conception in this paper is that objects at rest have no forces acting upon them. Students of high school age (12-17) were interviewed on this topic and were found to hold this alternate conception, that objects working had more gravity acting upon them than

those at rest (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). It was also found through a different study run by Palmer (2001) (as sited in Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007), that 34% of students in year 6 do not believe that gravity acts upon stationary objects (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). This conception develops through children thinking of a force as something which makes things move, which is not always the case (Darling., 2012).

Section Four Selection of Children: The children were selected to be interviewed initially because they were known to one of the interviewers and therefore easy to contact and arrange to interview. The children were also selected because as Kavanagh & Sneider (2007) suggests, children between the ages of approximately 9-13 begin to see concepts such as falling not only related to the fact that there is nothing supporting the object, or that it is simply heavy, but begin to incorporate the idea of gravity as an unseen force to explain why things fall. Both the boys interviewed were 9 years old and fell into this age category, so it was a good opportunity to see how they viewed concepts such as gravity.

Ethical Issues: Historically, research in many areas including social sciences, where children have been involved, has not always been to the advantage of the child, but to the advantage of the researcher(s) involved (Harcourt & Conroy, 2005). The idea that children are citizens and able to willingly participate in research of their own consent is a recent recognition point in child-related research, one that has come about after the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 (Einsrsdottir., 2009). As part of the rights of the child the consent, or informed assent in the case of children, is of key importance when engaging with children in ethical research, as participants should have the right to decide whether they would like to participate or not (Harcourt & Conroy, 2005) . This choice to participate provides children

with the feeling that their knowledge and ideas are valid and important, which can lead to information gathered from the research interview being of a high quality (Harcourt & Conroy 2005). The ethical issues involved with interviewing children for research purposes include confidentiality (that information or identity of the participant will not be revealed for any purposes other than those agreed to) (Einsrsdottir., 2009), that participants feel as though they can pull out at any time, and that they dont have to give a particular answer due to the power relationship between the (adult) interviewer and the child. The interviews carried out in this research abided by these ethical rules, and as in Einsrsdottir (2009), as well as the childs own written informed consent, and the consent of their parents, the children were reminded prior to the start of the interview that they had the right to not answer a question or to terminate the interview at any time. Research using childrens ideas and knowledge are used as the basis of curriculum and other informational documents in education, and to keep this aspect of educational research, childrens participation in research must be voluntary and the purpose of the research must be known to the child (Harcourt & Conroy 2005). To put Luke and Matthew at ease in this interview situation we chose to interview them both on the same afternoon, so they both experienced the interviews at a similar time and also at the same place. The interviews were conducted after school time and afternoon tea was provided for the children to make them feel comfortable. Ensuring the child feels comfortable in the surrounding environment is important when interviewing children as, unlike adults, they often do not know what to expect in an interview situation (Einsrsdottir., 2009). One of the interviewers was already well known to the students; however the other interviewer was introduced in an informal manner while afternoon tea was being served so the children felt comfortable in the presence of both interviewers. Interviewing children in a well-known environment to them and having a familiar person in the interviews are similar to some of the methods used and suggested in Einsrsdottir (2009) to ensure that children feel safe and

empowered to share their knowledge in an interview situation. The interview was conducted in a hands-on manner, so that the children did not feel like it was a quiz. There were no written questions, only drawing and reading (as well as the questions being read aloud by the interviewer to the students), so that if the student had weak reading or writing skills they were still able to express themselves. This is similar to methods used in Harcourt & Coroy (2005), as they allowed for the children to choose less-conventional methods of expressing themselves (other than reading and writing) so that they were participants rather than subjects in the research. Sorting and drawing were used in this interview to provide hard evidence of the childrens thoughts, and to provide activities for them to engage with and actively participate in.

Interview Process: The interview ran for approximately 15 minutes with each child, with the child and two interviewers present. One interviewer interacted with the child and asked questions, while the other took notes and photographs of the interview for recording purposes. The children were asked general questions about gravity and what they

understood, then questions relating to particular areas where misconceptions are commonly held. Each area was examined differently, for example when being asked about gravity acting on falling objects the child was asked to respond to the concept cartoon presented of two bungy jumpers (cartoon from Naylor and Keogh., 2000). Follow up questions such as why? or how? were often asked to clarify the childrens responses and allow them to display their knowledge. This concept also involved a physical sort where the children were asked to sort pictures of inanimate objects into which would fall faster or slower when dropped from a particular height. When asking this question the interviewers made sure to provide children with the option to put the objects in a row if they thought they would all land at the same

time, so as not to bias the answers by suggesting to the children that there was a fast/slow gradient for these objects. When looking at the idea of gravity on the Moon the children were first asked for their knowledge of gravity on the moon and were then shown a clip on YouTube of astronauts on the Moon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzYblYVUFk). The children were asked questions about how the astronauts moved, the forces acting upon them and how they stayed on the Moon. The children were then asked about the forces acting upon them in the room right now; were there the same forces/gravity acting on them as on the book on the table or the rug on the floor? The most interactive part of the interview related to asking children to explain the gravity acting upon a tennis ball when dropped from different heights. The children dropped a tennis ball close to the floor, then from standing height, from the top of a chair and then off a balcony and were asked to explain the gravity acting upon the tennis ball and how it compared from the different heights. To finish off the interview the students were asked to draw a picture of the Earth and to draw arrows in the direction that a tennis ball would go if they dropped it from different sides of the Earth, similar to the task given to year 3 and 6 students in research by Tao, Oliver and Venville (2012).

Results and Interpretation: Both students showed a mixture of alternate and scientific conceptions across different areas of the interview (Table 1). While Luke was steadfast and confident in his answers, when Matthew was answering he showed evidence of cognitive conflict with what he thought to be true but how that could be true based on what he knows, which caused him to second-guess his ideas and change his mind as he thought of new evidence. For example, when talking about gravity on the Moon, Matthew said that there was

no gravity in space, but then later, when describing how the astronaut stays on the Moon, changed his mind and said that there is a little bit of gravity (see notes in Appendix 1.1). Both Luke and Matthew initially possessed the alternate conception that there was no gravity on the Moon, and gave some form of astronauts clothes (boots, belt), which stopped the astronaut from floating away. Even after being presented with the footage of the astronaut walking on the moon and coming back down Lukes alternate conception was unchanged, he still said it was the boots bringing the astronaut down, but as previously mentioned, when the

Concept explored What is Gravity?

Luke A force, keeps things on the ground and stops everything from floating. All around the Earth but not found anywhere else. Small objects go faster and larger ones go slower. Two Bungy jumpers would go at the same speed. The heavier bungy jumper would go further down. Adamant that there was no gravity on the moon. The astronaut has heavy boots to keep him coming back down to surface of the moon. The bouncing walk of the astronaut is because there is no gravity.

Free fall of objects (refer to Figure 3 and 4)

Matthew Gravity pulls you down towards the Earth, it is all around the Earth and acts on all things. If there was no gravity then everything, even the ocean, would be floating. Serious consideration to the topic, re-thought answers to the question. Larger objects go faster, the large jumper would go further and faster. Space has no gravity, which is why you float in space. After careful consideration he dicided that there is a little bt of gravity on the moon and that astronauts need more weight to keep them on the surface, as there is less gravity, that is what the space belt does for an astronaut. Identified that gravity is pulling the ball down towards the Earth. Holds alternate conception that as it goes higher there is more gravity acting on it. Matthew mentions that the ball falls faster at a lower height. Still developing understanding of this concept, had cognitive conflict with this idea and kept changing his answer as he thought of different examples.

Gravity on the Moon

Gravity at different heights

There is more gravity acting on the ball the higher you drop it from. This links in with the idea of the free fall, as Luke mentioned that the ball falls faster the higher it is dropped from. Understands that the same gravity is acting on him, as well as other objects and large structures such as houses.

Gravity on resting objects

Table 1: A summary of notes taken in the interview showing both Luke and Mathews responses to questions asked and their ideas relating to the gravity concepts explored.

clip was shown to Matthew he changed his mind about gravity on the Moon, saying that there was a little bit of gravity to bring the astronaut down again (Table 1). He then followed this up by saying that if there was less gravity the heaviness of the astronauts belt would be needed to bring him back to the surface of the Moon, the belts weight was to compensate for less gravitational pull. These conflicting ideas, and Matthews change in opinion, suggests he is slightly confused about the topic, as his realising that there must be gravity on the Moon to bring the astronaut down conflicted with his previous idea that there was no gravity at all. Both Luke and Matthew held the alternate conception that larger objects would fall faster as when presented with a sort of random objects both boys ranked objects which they thought would fall faster or slower, and although they both said that particular objects would fall at the same time, they did not mention that all objects would land at the same time (Figures 3 and 4). In this area the boys sorted objects differently, Matthew into a linear progression of items fastest to slowest, based largely on the size of the objects (notes in Table 1 and Figure 3), while Luke chose to sort into two categories, slower and faster, choosing not to differentiate within these categories (Figure 4). This may have indicated that Luke, rather than believing that each item had an individual speed at which it fell and would land, believed closer to the scientific concept, that in fact at least some of these objects would land simultaneously, as his categories indicate that all of these objects within each group would land at the same time. To further illustrate this point, when presented with the concept cartoon from Naylor and Keogh (2000) of two bungy jumpers (a large and a small one) and asked who would fall faster, Matthew said that the larger person would fall faster (Appendix 1.1), but Luke said that they would fall at the same time (Appendix1.2). Lukes choice that the two jumpers would fall at the same time does not align completely with his sort of inanimate objects (Figure 3), so it is possible that his conception of gravity acting upon objects changes in relation to the context in which it is presented. It is important to note that

Figure 3 : The order which Matthew sorted random objects based upon how fast he thought they would fall when dropped.

in this activity both boys also selected the third option, that the heavier person would go down further on their bungy cord, which is in fact scientifically correct (Naylor & Keogh., 2000). Both Luke and Matthew held the alternate conception relating to dropping a tennis ball from different heights, both of them saying that if dropped from a higher point there is more gravity acting on the tennis ball. When asked about whether or not gravity was acting

on objects and themselves at the time of the interview Luke demonstrated that he held the scientific conception that forces do act on stationary objects, rather than the alternate conception. Luke told that gravity was acting upon him at that time, and even went so far as to say that gravity was acting on him the same as on the book on the table, or even the house on the ground (Table 1). Matthew was not as confident in his understanding of this topic (Table 1). When initially discussing gravity in general he had stated that it acts on everything, however when it came to making the distinction between gravity working on objects as rest compared to working objects he was not able to state whether or not gravity acted on all of the objects and changed his mind many times as he continued to think about this. When asked to draw where the tennis ball would go
Figure 4: Lukes sort of how fast random objects would fall; he has sorted them into 2 groups, faster and slower.

when dropped in terms of them on the Earth Matthews drawing demonstrated that he understood that gravity was not only in the atmosphere, but that it pulled the ball to the centre of the Earth, from no matter where on Earth the ball was dropped (Appendix 1.1). Lukes response to this question did not demonstrate this scientific idea, rather the alternate conception, as his drawing of the figure at the bottom of the Earth showed the ball dropping down, away from the surface of the Earth, which suggests that his understanding of gravity is that it pulls things down (Appendix 1.2).

Section Five Comparison to the literature: The alternate conception held by the Luke and Matthew in relation to how astronauts stay on the Moon appears to be consistent with many childrens beliefs that astronauts have some item of clothing/equipment (such as shoes or a belt) which keep them from floating away from the surface of the Moon. A British study asked similar questions to students about gravity acting on the Moon and one of the responses by a 12 year old boy was almost identical to that given by Luke in the interview; that astronauts have heavy boots which would prevent them from floating off into space (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). This response has also been seen in many adults, and even in some teachers who have been interviewed on this subject, which shows how widespread this alternate conception is (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). The difficulty Luke had with the drawing activity, where a tennis ball would go if dropped straight down, is not an uncommon difficulty for students, as it can be hard for children to relate the ground they stand on as part of the Earth as a whole (Gilbert & Watts., 1983). When comparing Matthews and Lukes responses to this question, Matthew had a better awareness of the surface of the earth being part of the Earth as a whole, and he also identified that the pull of gravity was not that of the atmosphere, but of the core of the Earth. In

comparison, Lukes drawing suggested he did not hold these understandings and held the alternate conception that gravity does not come from the Earths centre, and that the atmosphere and gravity are linked, which is a common alternate conception held among children (Gilbert & Watts., 1983). In studies by Tao, Oliven and Venville (2012), when students in year 6 were asked to complete this drawing task, the majority of students answered similarly to Luke, they did not mention gravity, and answered that the ball would fall to the ground. This indicates that Lukes conceptions are similar to many children of his age and he may not have considered the effect of gravity on the ball, or that he does not hold the scientific understanding that gravity is from the centre of the Earth. He instead subscribes more to the alternate conception that gravity is found in the atmosphere. Matthews response to this question, having the scientific understanding that the ball would go to the centre of the Earth, was a response given by only four of the eighteen year 6 students interviewed in Tao, Oliver and Venville (2012). Although his response is a more scientific conceptualisation of what is happening, it is clearly a less commonly held idea among students his age. Luke held the correct scientific understanding that objects at rest do have forces, including gravitational pull, acting on them. As previously mentioned this concept is not always an obvious one for children to grasp, and 34% of students in year 6 were found to hold the alternate conception that objects at rest are not being acted on by gravity (Palmer, 2001, as cited in Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). Matthew still appeared to be one of this 34% of students who did not yet distinguish between gravity pulling on all objects as compared to just objects which are working.

Section Six Rationale for teaching: It has been seen that alternate conceptions can persist, studies in Portugal of students after 4 years of a physics course showed that many still believed that

larger objects would free-fall faster because they were heavier, sharing these beliefs with year 10 students who had had no formal teaching in this area (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). These university students believed these conceptions so strongly that they could provide mathematical equations which they believed proved their alternate conception (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). In teaching concepts where alternate conceptions are held two different methods can be used, the evolutionary method, where small bits of knowledge are added by the learner to encourage change over a period of time, and the revolutionary method, which is more of a constructivist approach to learning and creates cognitive conflict to encourage restructuring of the learners ideas based upon new evidence (Gilbert & Watts., 1983). For some students the idea of evolutionary change works best to change their conceptions about a topic (Skamp., 2007). Providing time for evaluation, discussion and reflection, for example in the form of a science journal and group and class discussion, can sometimes be more effective in eliciting conceptual change for some students, although teachers do still need to be aware if the alternate conception persists (Skamp., 2007). It has been suggested that to cause conceptual change in students they need a supportive, social environment where they feel safe to discuss what they think (and are encouraged to do so), engaging activities, first-hand experiences which challenge their conceptions, and encouragement to explain what they see and what they think is happening, after witnessing the same concept in a variety of different situations (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). Constructivist methods, which challenge peoples pre-conceived thoughts and ideas on a particular topic, do so by creating a conceptual conflict in the mind of the learner, as there is conflict between what they believe to be correct and what they are experiencing (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). Teaching in a constructivist way requires the students to reconstruct their own ideas of a topic based upon new knowledge, rather than a teacher-transmitted telling of new ideas and concepts (Skamp., 2007). This can sometimes be difficult, particularly with

younger students, as it requires metacognitive thought that may not be well developed in younger children (Kuhn., 2002). The constructivist view of teaching however, has proved to be effective when trying to alter an alternate conception held by a student, and has been seen to be particularly effective in teaching about gravity (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). Not only do students find a conflicting idea through this method of teaching, but they are required to include these new conflicts and the evidence for them in restructuring their own ideas about a concept (Gilbert & Watts., 1983). Teaching to challenge alternate concepts, or to introduce new, scientific ones, is best taught when applying concepts to real-world situations (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). An example of a constructivist teaching activity to address the misconception of the heavier items falling faster could be to set the situation of the bungee jumpers such as presenting the concept cartoon by Naylor & Keogh (2000) and to then have everyone share their thoughts (and their evidence for this), discussing this in groups providing why students think particular things will happen. The next step is to actually perform the bungee activity in groups, using heavy/light materials and elastic bands, then to provide them with other situations where they can test this multiple times, and finally to return and see if the conception has changed based on these experiences/ new information by a class or group discussion. Requiring children to provide evidence for why they think something will happen encourages the metacognitive thinking that will allow students to look at their own beliefs and reconstruct their own ideas when presented with new evidence (Kuhn., 2002). Time for sharing and discussion is of critical importance when addressing alternate conceptions, as hands-on experiences are not always enough to prove or disprove something, students need to be able to rationalise and communicate what it is that is happening in these experiences (Driver., 1981). Through discussion, the teacher has the opportunity to talk with the learner about what they have seen and how their ideas may have changed, which is

particularly important, especially because the learners conceptions may not have not changed through the experiences. It is possible that even if new information and theories are presented to the learner, if they are not done so in a way that allows the learner to experience cognitive conflict and reconstruct their knowledge with their existing conceptions, then the information may be disregarded or assimilated into the persisting alternate conception (Kuhn., 2002). Another gravity-related activity which could challenge students and make them apply their understanding and provide evidence for their decisions would be to discuss what would happen if there was no gravity (looking at the effect on buildings and natural formations such as oceans and people). This reverse-application of the concept to students lives would be a good starting point for discussion about gravity and how it affects students everyday lives. Learners should not only have the opportunity to prove new ideas, but to disprove old ones (Driver., 1981), which is another reason why multiple activities, with opportunities to prove, disprove and apply ideas, will provide students with a solid understanding of scientific concepts and will aim to disprove their alternate conceptions. If/once a correct scientific conception is held by the student the teacher should re-enforce this knowledge by challenging the students to apply their knowledge and see which situations their understandings apply and where it does not (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007).

Reflection: Reporting The assignment requirements were to design and perform an interview with two children to determine their prior knowledge about gravity and then take this information to compare their knowledge and any alternate conceptions they had to published literature. Responding Although I have a science background I do not have a very good knowledge or understanding of physics concepts, so this assignment gave me the opportunity to learn about these concepts. The interview-style format including the ethics process prior to the interview was also a new experience for me, one which I found sometimes challenging but overall enjoyed and found to be very informative. Relating The process of basing an assignment on information taken from in interview which I co-designed was a new experience for me and one which taught me a lot about the interview process, obtaining prior knowledge from children, and childrens knowledge about the topic of gravity. Unfortunately after conducting the interviews it was found that the audio recording did not work and we were unable to use any of the audio recordings for the purposes of the assignment. Although this presented an unanticipated challenge, in designing the interview we had planned to use a note-taker in addition to the audio recording. This choice proved to be beneficial, as in the end the results from our interviews used in the assignment were based upon the notes taken in the interview (seen in Appendix). Identifying students prior knowledge before teaching is of great importance, because it allows teachers to identify areas where students may need specific teaching and design learning experiences which will do this (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). Simply assuming that a student understands gravity because they can tell you that gravity keeps us on the Earth does not mean that they do not hold alternate conceptions on the topic. This was seen through our research, although both boys interviewed knew that gravity pulled us to the Earth they both held different alternate conceptions as to different aspects of the topic.

The completion of this work highlighted that identification of these alternate conceptions through determining students prior knowledge is of great importance in a primary science classroom, as alternate conceptions can persist into adulthood. When researching the alternate conceptions and reading about studies in which alternate conceptions have persisted into adulthood, particularly in Kavangah & Sneider (2007), I was confronted by how influential an alternate conception can be if left unchallenged. This has important implications for learners throughout their lives and is the responsibility of the teacher to attempt to resolve the alternate conceptions held by children. Obviously this can be a problem when teachers themselves do not hold the correct scientific conception on the topic, as it has been seen that they sometimes do not (Kavanagh & Sneider., 2007). When completing the theory aspect of the assignment relating to the scientific concept of gravity, I discovered that I myself held some of these alternate conceptions, and found some of the concepts relating to gravity to be challenging, so although it is desirable that teachers possess all the correct scientific conceptions, this may not always be the case. Reconstructing When teaching I will apply the knowledge gained through this assignment in terms of content, alternate conceptions and prior knowledge determination to create as many opportunities as possible for my students to explore their conceptions and gather evidence to enable them to reconstruct their own understanding. I will also attempt to make use of as many different activities as possible to determine areas of alternate conception and prior knowledge so that I am able to give students experiences to further their own learning and develop their scientific thinking. This assignment has allowed me to realise that I also hold some alternate conceptions. Although I cannot know everything about all the different areas of science, as a teacher attempting to address alternate student conceptions, it is my responsibility to ensure that I am providing students with correct information to help them challenge their own conceptions and construct new ones.

References Australian Curriculum and Reporting Agency (2012) Australian Curriculum: Science Allen, M. (2010) Misconceptions in Primary Science. Maidenhead: Mc Graw-Hill Education. Cain, F. (2009). Gravity of the Earth. The Universe Today. http://www.universetoday.com/26775/gravity-of-the-earth/. (accessed 31 March 2013). Darling, G. (2012) How does force affect motion? Science and Children. 50 (2). Driver, R. (1981) Pupils alternative frameworks in science. European Journal of Science Education. 3 (1). 93-101. Einsrsdottir, J. (2007). Research with children: methodological and ethical challenges. European Early Childhood Education. 15 (2). 197-211. Gilbert, J., and Watts, D. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education. 10 (1). 61-98. Harcourt, D., and Conroy, H. (2005) Informed assent: ethics and processes when researching with young children. Early Child Development and Care. 175 (6). 567-577. Kuhn, D. (2002). What is Scientific Thinking and How Does it Develop? In Goswami, U. (Ed). Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development. (349-370). doi: 10.1002/9780470996652 Nardelli,D., Saffin, P., and Taylor, P. (2003). Science Alive . Australia: Jacaranda. p 220, 231. Naylor, S., and Keogh, B. (2000). Cartoon Concepts in Science Education. Cheshire, UK: Millgate House Publishing. Kavanagh, C., and Sneider, C. (2007). Learning about gravity I. Free fall: a guide for teachers and curriculum developers. Astronomy Education Review. 5 (2). Skamp, K. (2007) Teaching Primary Science Constructively. South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning. Tao, Y., Oliver, M., and Venville, G. (2012). Chinese and Australian childrens understanding of the Earth: a cross cultural study of conceptual development. Cultural Studies of Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11422-012-9415-1 Wilkening, F., and Huber, S. (2002). Childrens Intuitive Physics. In Goswami, U. (Ed). Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development. (349-370). doi:
10.1002/9780470996652

Woodford, C. (2004) Routes of Science: Gravity. London: Brown Reference Group.