What We Call Misconceptions May Be Necessary Stepping-Stones toward Making Sense of the World.
What We Call Misconceptions May Be Necessary Stepping-Stones toward Making Sense of the World.
复制标题
我们所谓的误解可能是理解世界的必要垫脚石。
DOI：
10.2505/4/tst16_083_03_69
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Windschitl
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Campbell;C. Schwarz;M. Windschitl
[插图省略] 本文的标题强调了当今学校中罕见的科学学习观点——教师和学生认为误解对于理解世界很有用（NRC 2008）。什么是误解？许多人认为它们是学生的想法，与科学不符，有时很难改变。一个例子是这样一种想法：“在我推动球后，它最终会停止，因为球会‘保持力’，直到力耗尽并停止。”虽然我们老师可能会想快速拒绝物体“保持力”的想法，但简单地告诉学生这个想法是不正确的，对他们的思考影响不大。然而，这些想法可能会成为有意义的对话的一部分，从而支持推理和学习。所谓意义建构，我们只是指以有助于产生有意义的联系的方式研究和运用想法——包括学生的想法（包括经验、语言和认识方式）以及文本和其他材料中的权威想法。这可能包括要求学生谈论他们的想法，比较想法，测试这些想法，并看看它们是否可以用来解释自然事件和过程。这些类型的推理事件经常发生在学生参与科学实践的过程中，例如根据证据进行论证、构建解释或修改模型。下一代科学标准（NGSS Lead States 2013）强调学习作为意义建构。过去，当学生提出与科学不符的解释时（例如将季节归因于地球与太阳之间距离的变化），这些想法会被视为有问题的误解，需要老师“消除”并“印上”正确的想法。在这一策略中，老师通常要求学生用正确的想法代替错误的想法（例如地球的倾斜及其绕太阳的公转导致季节变化）。虽然向学生提供准确的科学信息很有用，但过早关注发现和纠正误解可能会让学生感到困惑，不明白为什么他们自己的想法不准确，并且无法让学生参与推理或想法修正。当他们的错误观念被“纠正”时，学生们就会知道他们自己的想法需要被他们不完全理解的其他想法所取代。当这种情况发生时，学生可能会记住官方的“学校”知识，但在思考和解释外部世界时却会回到原来的想法，因为他们自然会用自己的现实世界经验、语言和验证主张的规则进行推理。最近，学习的资源视角为修复错误观念提供了另一种选择（diSessa 1993；Hammer 等人 2005；Warren 等人 2001）。资源视角不是从缺陷的角度看待学生的知识，即需要消除“错误”的答案，而是强调学生如何利用不同类型的有价值的知识进行推理，以理解新的情况和想法。这些资源包括片面的理解、非标准的想法、日常经验和谈话方式。按照这种观点，学生激活他们认为有助于在他们所处的特定背景（例如社会和物理环境）中解释或解决问题的想法、经验或语言。 NGSS 利用这种资源视角，并在倡导科学教学的新愿景时优先考虑意义建构。目标是让学生参与科学和工程实践，利用他们对学科核心思想和交叉概念的不断发展的理解来理解现象或解决问题。科学和工程实践是课堂社区用来识别某个想法在其使用环境中何时有效或无效的工具。如果学生有指导和空间互相大声推理，他们就可以在课堂上充满关于如何解决问题以及为什么这些想法在所审查的特定背景下有意义的想法（Cohen and Ball 1990）。 ……
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The title of this article highlights a view of science learning uncommon in schools today--one in which teachers and students view misconceptions as useful for making sense of the world (NRC 2008). What are misconceptions? Many consider them to be student ideas inconsistent with science and sometimes hard to change. One example is the idea that "A ball eventually stops after I push it because the ball 'holds force' until the force runs out and stops." While we teachers may be tempted to quickly reject the idea of objects "holding force," simply telling students the idea is incorrect has little effect on their thinking. Such ideas might, however, become part of a sense-making conversation that can support reasoning and learning. By sense-making, we simply mean working on and with ideas--both students' ideas (including experiences, language, and ways of knowing) and authoritative ideas in texts and other materials--in ways that help generate meaningful connections. This can involve asking students to talk about their thinking, to compare ideas, to test these ideas, and to see if they can be used to explain natural events and processes. These types of reasoning episodes occur often during students' engagement with science practices such as arguing from evidence, constructing explanations, or revising models. Learning as sense-making is emphasized in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013). In the past, when students have offered explanations inconsistent with science (such as ascribing the seasons to the changing distance between the Earth and the Sun), these ideas were seen as problematic misconceptions needing to be "stamped out" by the teacher with the correct ideas "stamped in." In this strategy, the teacher generally asked students to replace the wrong idea with the correct one (such as the tilt of the Earth and its revolution around the Sun causing the seasons). While providing accurate scientific information to students is useful, an early focus on finding and fixing misconceptions can confuse students about why their own ideas aren't accurate and fails to engage students in reasoning or idea revision. When their misconceptions are "corrected," students learn that their own ideas need to be replaced by other ideas that they don't fully understand. When this happens, students will likely memorize official "school" knowledge but fall back on their original ideas when thinking about and explaining the outside world, since they naturally reason with their own real-world experiences, language, and rules for validating claims. More recently, a resources perspective on learning has offered an alternative to repairing misconceptions (diSessa 1993; Hammer et al. 2005; Warren et al. 2001). Rather than seeing student knowledge from a deficit view, where "wrong" answers need to be eliminated, a resources perspective emphasizes how students can reason with different kinds of valuable knowledge to make sense of new situations and ideas. These resources include partial understandings, nonstandard ideas, everyday experiences and ways of talking. In this view, students activate the ideas, experiences, or language they think will help develop explanations or solve problems in the particular context (e.g., the social and physical environment) in which they find themselves. The NGSS uses this resources perspective and prioritizes sense-making in advocating for a new vision for science teaching. The goal is for students to engage in science and engineering practices as they use their developing understanding of disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts to make sense of phenomena or solve problems. Science and engineering practices are tools the classroom community uses to recognize when an idea is or isn't productive in the context in which it is being used. If students have the guidance and space to reason aloud with one another, they can fill the classroom with ideas about how to solve problems and why the ideas make sense in the particular context being examined (Cohen and Ball 1990). …