Preservice Elementary Teachers5 Conceptions ofWhat Causes Night and Day

Virginia A. AtwoodUniversity of Kentucky

Ronald K. AtwoodUniversity of Kentucky

Two different procedures were utilized to study 50preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions ofwhatcauses night and day on earth. The numbers of responses representing alternative conceptions for themodels with written and verbal explanation procedures were 27 and 14, respectively. The alternativeconceptionmostfrequently expressedfor bothprocedureswas that night and day are causedby the earthrevolving around the sun. The frequency with which alternative conceptions were expressed by futureteachers is a problem which should be addressed with instruction using models.

A Private Universe (Schneps, 1988) graphicallyprovided data which revealed that only 2 of23 studentschosen from a Harvard University graduation linecould provide scientific explanations for why it getshotter in the summer. Perhaps for some of the 21students who provided no explanation or an explana-tionwhich reflected an alternative conception (Dykstra,Boyle. & Monarch. 1992; Hills, 1989), it will nevermatter in their personal or professional lives. Foruniversity students who are preparing to be teachers,holding alternative conceptions about concepts theyare expected to teach could matter a great deal.

For example, attempting to teach elementary stu-dents the cause of night and day, which arguably isconceptually less difficult than teaching the cause ofseasons, is a common practice in elementary schools.Is it reasonable to assume that preservice elementaryteachers can provide a scientific explanation of whatcausesnight anddayon earth? Thedismal results oftheHarvard study suggest it might be unwise to make thatassumption. Otherresearchhas revealed thatpreserviceand inservice elementary teachers frequently hold al-ternative conceptions on a wide variety of scienceconcepts, but data on preservice elementary teachers’conceptions ofwhat causes night and day on earth havenot been included (Aron, Francek, Nelson, & Bisard,1994;Bitner, 1992;Feher&Rice, 1987;Galili.Bendall,& Golderg, 1993; Gilbert, Osbome, & Fensham, 1982;Glasson & Teates, 1989; Heller & Finley. 1992; Lane& French. 1994).

One oftwo purposes ofthis study was to determineifpreservice elementary teachers can provide explana-tions which reflect a scientific conception of whatcauses night and day on the earth. The second was toidentify alternative conceptions about the cause ofnight and day. Once identified, these alternative con-ceptions can be specifically addressed in subsequentinstructional efforts in teacher education.

Procedures

Two procedures were utilized to obtain data forthis descriptive study. First, 50 preservice elementaryteachers were asked to respond in writing to the follow-ing question: What causes night and day on earth?Secondly, during the two subsequent days, each ofthe50 preservice teachers in the sample, hereafter referredto as students, was individually interviewed. Duringthe interview the studentwas asked to usemodels oftheearth and sunto demonstrate what causes night and dayon earth while also giving a verbal explanation. Thecontent of the interviews was not announced in ad-vance and each student interviewed was asked torefrain from discussing the procedures and content ofthe interview with other students. Interviews havebeenrecommended as the procedure ofchoice by otherinvestigators (Callison & Wright, 1993; 1994).

Like the procedure used in the Harvard study,declarative knowledge would appear to be tappedwhen giving a written explanation. The second proce-dure (models withverbal explanation) would appeartotap procedural knowledge. Lefrancois (1988) distin-guished between knowing that something is the case(declarative knowledge) andknowinghowto do some-thing (procedural knowledge).

The students interviewed in this study were en-rolled in a senior-level professional block ofsixcoursesin an elementary teacher education program at a majoruniversity in the midwestem United States. Includedwere science and social studies methods and materialscourses. Instruction onhow to teach what causes nightand day, orthe seasons, had not occurred in the profes-sional blockwhenthe two assessmentprocedures wereused. The students had already completed theirgeneralstudies requirements, including a two-semester se-quence with laboratory in both the physical and bio-logical sciences, and a minimum of 15 semester hours

School Science and Mathematics

Preservice Elementary Teachers’

ofsocial science course work. In fact, only a semesterofstudent teaching remained to be completed after theprofessional block. All students in the sample wereCaucasian females.

Responses obtained from both procedures wereclassified into one of three categories by the principalinvestigators. A response judged to be scientificallyaccurate and complete was assumed to reflect a scien-tific conception (SC) and was classified as such. Aresponsejudged to include evidence ofan understand-ing at odds with a scientific conception was assumed toreflect an alternative conception (AC). A responsewhichwasnotcompleteenoughtobe classified SC, butwhich contained no scientific inaccuracies, was classi-fied as an incomplete explanation (IE). For a writtenprocedure response to be classified as SC it had toindicate, in the student’s words, that the phenomena ofnight and day on earth is caused by the rotation of theearth on its axis. The inhabitants on the side ofthe earthfacing the sun are experiencing day, and those on theside ofthe earthnot receiving sunlight are experiencingnight. For models with verbal explanation response tobe classified as SC, the student had to use somecombination of verbal explanation and demonstrationwith the models to communicate the same explanationin substance as was required on the written procedure.

The models used were fashioned after those aninvestigator had seen used by an outstanding eighth-grade earth science teacher with apparent success in astaff- development setting. A yellow plastic sphereapproximately 7 cm in diameter represented the sun;the sphere sat in a cradle, which was a green plasticgerminating cup base. A white styrofoam sphereapproximately 4 cm in diameter represented the earth.A wooden dowel rod approximately 10 cm in lengthand 3 mm in diameter was inserted through the centerof the white sphere and into a hole in a small woodenblock. The fit of the dowel in the block was just looseenough so that the sphere could be easily rotated byturning either the dowel or the sphere. A longitudinal

line was drawn in ink around the sphere connecting thepoints where the dowel emerged from eitherpoleofthesphere. A latitudinal line was drawn around the sphereto indicate the location of the equator. A straight pinwas inserted in the styrofoam sphere to represent thelocation ofthe city in whichthe university was located.Eachinterviewbeganwith abriefstatementaboutwhatwas represented by the models and the task to beperformed bythe student Specifically, the student wastold to explain, while demonstrating with the models,what causes night and day on earth.

Results and Discussion

Responses to the two procedures were categorizedto obtain insight into preservice teachers’ conceptionsof what causes night and day, (see Table 1). Note thatapproximately twice as many student responses wereclassified as SC and half as many responses wereclassified as AC forthe models withverbal explanationprocedure, when compared to the written procedure.This finding is consistent with the view that physicalmodels do aid students in explaining abstract phenom-ena (Callison & Wright.1994).

Perhaps the use of models enabled some studentsto demonstrate proceduralknowledgewhichthey couldnot, or did not, demonstrate through written responses.Another possibility is that the use of the models hadinstructional value, enabling some students to con-struct, or reconstruct, an understanding. Four studentsclearly began giving an explanation which would havebeen classified as an alternative conception beforemaking comments such as, "That can’t be right" or’That wouldn’t work," and indicating they were start-ing over. They then provided a scientific explanation.Other students made movements with the models be-fore indicating they were ready to begin a response tothe task. While the investigators did not indicate inadvance of the interview that the content of the inter-view was to be related to the written procedure, stu-

Table 1. Frequencies ofCategorization ofPreservice Elementary Teachers Based on Responses to the Question:What Causes Night and Day on Earth? (n =50)

Responsecategories

Scientific Conception (SC)Alternative Conception (AC)Incomplete Explanation (IE)

Writtenprocedure

16277

Models with verbalexplanation procedures

35141

Volume 95(6), October 1995

Preservice Elementary Teachers9

dents could have taken action following the comple-tion ofthe written procedure to help them construct anunderstanding of what causes night and day on earth.

These possible explanations for the differences inScientific Conception and Alternative Conception re-sponse classifications for the two procedures may alsoexplainwhyfewerresponses were classified as Incom-plete Explanation for the models with verbal explana-tion procedure. However, probing with statementslike, "Say more about that," or "And why does thatcause night and day?" when a response was not clearlyan Alternative Conception or Scientific Conceptionresponse, likely helped minimize the number of In-complete Explanation responses for the models withverbal explanation procedure.

For the written procedure, 27 students whose re-sponses were classified as Alternative Conceptionactually provided 31 AC responses since four studentsprovided two AC explanations. Of the 31 AC re-sponses, 17 suggested that night and day are caused bythe earth rotating, or revolving, around the sun. Fouridentified the sun’s revolution around the earth as thecause, and two responses included explanation that theearth tilts awayfrom the sun atnight and toward the sunin day. Each of the eight remaining responses wassomewhat unique, although four of the eight includedthe moon as an integral part of the explanation.

Each ofthe 14 students providing AC responses tothe models with verbal explanation procedure offeredonly one response. The rotation, or revolving, of theearth around the sun, suggested by eight teachers, wasagain the most frequently observed explanation re-flecting an alternative conception. The second mostfrequently observed alternative explanation, suggestedby three teachers, was that the sun revolves around theearth.

Previous work has suggested that alternative con-ceptions can be firmly held (Boyle & Maloney, 1991;Brown, 1992; Champagne, Klopfer.&Anderson, 1980;Schoon, 1989). A comparison of responses by indi-viduals on the two procedures revealed nine ofthe tenteachers classified as AC on both procedures providedthe sameexplanation onbothprocedures. These expla-nations and the number of teachers providing eachexplanation follow:

1. the earth rotates or revolves around the sun (5);2. the sun revolves around the earth (2);3. the tilt of the earth (1); and,4. relations among the earth, moon and sun (1).

Interestingly, only 12 students, or 24%, provided

an explanation representing a scientific conception onboth procedures. With only 24% ofthe sample consis-tently showing evidence ofhaving a scientific concep-tion of what causes night and day on earth, and only18% showing evidence of a consistent alternativeconception, it could be concluded that the conceptionunder study may have been largely untutored (Hills,1989), or not recently tutored, for part of the sample.When asked at the conclusion of each interview if theperson remembered receiving instruction on this topicat the elementary, middle, high school, or universitylevels, only a few reported with confidence that theyhad prior instruction; mostmade comments such as, "Ithink I had something . . ." or "I must have hadsomething . . ." Ten persons reported rememberinginstruction on the topic only at the elementary level; 15persons reported remembering no instruction.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The extent to which the conceptual knowledge ofwhat causes night and day for this sample is represen-tative of the knowledge of a broader preservice el-ementary teacher population is unknown. However,the magnitude of the problem in this sample providesa basis for predicting that the problem exists to somedegree in other samples. The use of the models withverbal explanation procedure is recommended to col-leagues who would like to test that prediction in theirlocale. At thevery least, that procedure appears to havethe advantage ofminimizing the use ofthe IncompleteExplanation category. If it also is more effective intapping procedural knowledge and at least as effectiveat tapping declarative knowledge, then theprocedure isarguably more valid than the written procedure alone.

Where alternative conceptions and incompleteexplanations are found, instruction should be providedto help preservice teachers construct a scientific con-ception ofwhat causes night and day on earth. Experi-mentation with a variety of instructional strategies isrecommended for this purpose. The results of thisstudy suggest that the use ofmodels and verbal expla-nation has potential in an instructional plan. Also, aninstructional plan should directly confront the mostfrequently held and most durable alternative concep-tions (Feher & Meyer, 1992; Fetherstonhaugh &Treagust, 1992). Faculty responsible for teachingelementary social studies and/or science methods andmaterials and/or faculty responsible for teaching gen-eral studies courses, such as physical geography orastronomy should take the initiative in seeing that thisconceptual problem is addressed.

School Science and Mathematics

Preservice Elementary Teachers*

Regardless of who actually provides the instruc-tion to preservice teachers, attention must be given tohow the students are likely to view the instruction. Ithas been argued that science instruction targeted topromote the exchange of alternative conceptions forscientific conceptions must be viewed by the prospec-tive learners as being intelligible, plausible, and fruit-ful (Gunstone, Gray, & Searle. 1992; Hewson, 1981;Posner. Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). The use ofmodels along with verbal explanationpresumably willhelp students perceive instruction as being intelligibleand plausible. If preservice teachers think they soonmay be expected to help children construct an under-standing of what causes night and day. they are likelyto view instruction to help them construct a scientificconception for themselves as being very fruitful.

References

Aron, R.. Francek. M., Nelson, B., & Bisard, W.(1994). Atmospheric misconceptions. The ScienceTeacher, 61, 31-33.

Bitner, B. L. (1992). Preservice elementary andsecondary science methods teachers: Comparison offormal reasoning, ACT science, process skill, andphysical science misconceptions scores. Columbus:Ohio State University, Center for Science, Mathemat-ics and Environmental Education. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 344 781)

Boyle, R. K.. & Maloney. D. P. (1991). Effect ofwritten text on usage of Newton’s third law. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 25(2), 123-139.

Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analo-gies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factorsinfluencing conceptualchange. Journal ofResearch inScience Teaching, 29(1). 17-34.

Champagne, A., Klopfer. L. E., & Anderson, J. H.(1980). Factors influencing the learning of classicalmechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12),1074-1079.

Callison. P. L., & Wright, E. L. (1993. April). The

effect ofteaching strategies using models onpreserviceelementary teachers* conceptions about earth-sun-moon relationships. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the National Association for Research inScience Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

Callison, P. L.. & Wright, E. L. (1994. January).The implications of complex abstract concepts onelementary science instruction. Paperpresented at theannual meeting ofthe Association for the Education ofTeachers in Science, El Paso, TX.

Dykstra, D. I., Jr., Boyle, C. F., & Monarch, I. A.

(1992). Studying conceptual change in learning phys-ics. Science Education, 76(6). 615-652.

Feher. E.. & Meyer. K. R. (1992). Children’sconceptions of color. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 29(5), 505-520.

Feher, E., & Rice, K. (1987). A comparison ofteacher-student conceptions in optics. In J. D. Novak(Ed.), Proceedings of the second international semi-nar: Misconceptions and educational strategies inscience and mathematics (pp. 108-117). Ithaca, NY:Comell University Press.

Fetherstonhaugh, T., & Treagust, D. F. (1992).Students’ understanding of light and its properties:Teaching to engender conceptual change. ScienceEducation, 76(6), 653-672.

Galili. L. Bendall. S., & Goldberg, F. (1993). Theeffects of prior knowledge and instruction on under-standing image formation. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 30,271-301.

Gilbert, J. K., Osbome, R. J., & Fensham, P. J.(1982). Children’s science and its consequences forteaching. Science Education, 66, 623-633.

Glasson, G.E., & Teates, T. G. (1989, March 30-April 1). The relationships among alternativephysicalscience conceptions, formal reasoning ability, andscience background of preservice teachers. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the National Asso-ciation for Research in Science Teaching, San Fran-cisco, CA.

Gunstone, F. G., Gray, C. M. R.. & Searle. P.(1992). Some long-term effects of uninformed con-ceptual change. Science Education, 76(2), 175-197.

Heller,P.M.&Finley,F.N.(1992).Variableusesof alternative conceptions: A case study in currentelectricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,29 (3). 259-275.

Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual changeapproach to learning science. European Journal ofScience Education, 3, 383-396.

Hills. G. L. C. (1989). Students’ "untutored"beliefs about natural phenomena: Primitive science orcommon sense? Science Education, 73,155-186.

Lane, C. L., & French, D. (1994. January). En-couraging reflection in preservice teachers throughcomparing student preconceptions with their own.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Associa-tion for the Education ofTeachers in Science, El Paso.TX.

Lefrancois. G. R. (1988). Psychology for teach-ing. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Posner, G. J., Strike. K. A.. Hewson, P. W., &Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodationofa scientific

Volume 95(6), October 1995

Preservice Elementary Teachers’

conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.Science Education, 66,211-227.

Schneps, M. H. (Project Director). (1988). Aprivate universe [Videotape]. (Available from Pyra-mid Film and Video, 2801 Colorado Avenue, SantaMonica, CA 90404)

Schoon, K. J. (1989, March 30-April 1). Miscon-ceptions in the earth sciences: A cross-age study.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, SanFrancisco, CA.

Note: The authors can be reached at the Department ofCurriculum & Instruction, 113 Taylor Education Bidg.,University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506

News Bulletin

The materials from the Woodrow Wilson Insti-tute on Gender Equity in Mathematics and Sciencehave been published with the help of a grant fromPhilip Morris.

Withsections onresearch activities and resources,the papers are designed for pro-college teachers tohelp in devising classroom strategies to assure equalopportunities for all students. Included are papers byS. Tobias, authority on math anxiety, J. Countryman,author of Writing to Learn Mathematics, and E.Fennema, gender issues in education researcher.

The free publication is available on request to:Editor, The Woodrow Wilson National Fellow-

ship Foundation NewsletterTheWoodrowWilsonNationalFellowshipFoun-

dation, CN 5281, Princeton, NJ 08543-5281.-reprintedfrom NSELA Newsletter, Feb. 1995

technology happen in this country," says RobertBerkman.Math/ScienceTeacheratBank StreetSchoolfor Children.

IDEAAAS (copyright 1995, ISBN 0-87168-545-0; 256 pages) is available for $24.95 plus $4.00 S&H,from The Learning Team, Inc., 10 Long Pond Rd.,Armonk. NY 10504 (phone:914-273-2226; Fax 914-273-2227). -reprinted from Science LeadershipTrend Notes, March 1995

Future Schools: Connected to the World is a 22minute videotape on the use of technology in theclassroom has been produced by the MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology. Cost is $10 plus shippingandhandling. Contact Master Communications Group(attn. Julia). 7322 Ohms Ln., Edina MN 55439

-reprintedfromNews Bulletin, Feb. 1995

Dimensions of Early Childhood^ a quarterlyjour-nal of the Southern Early Childhood Association,seeks articles in the areas of math and science relatedto earlychildhood education. ContactElizabethShores,Editor, P.O. Box 56130, Little Rock, AR 72215.

-reprinted’fromNews Bulletin, Feb. 1995

Are you looking for sources of activities, work-shops, research opportunities, or summercamps? Doyouneed to find curriculumguidelines, teachingunits,or assessment models? Do you want to locate leadersin science, mathematics, and technology education?

You’ll find it all in IDEAAAS: Sourcebook forScience, Mathematics, and Technology Education.Published by the American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science (AAAS) and The LearningTeam, the 256-page resource was released in Decem-ber culminating 18 months ofresearch, development,and design.

"This is an outstanding resource for parents, edu-cators, or anybody who wants to stay in touchwith thepeople and institutions whichmake science, math, and

To expand community-wide school reform ef-forts, the National Education Goals Panel developedthe Community Action Toolkit, to provide an over-view on the goals for standards-based reform. In-cluded is how the goals and voluntary academicstandards can be used as a framework for renewingeducation and lifelong learning for all.

The toolkit contains guidebooks, hands-onsamplematerials, a resource directory, and suggestions tohelp states and communities engage in the goalsprocess.

Each toolkit contains a computer disk version ofall text, so that communities can tailor the materials tomeet their needs and reproduce the handouts fordistribution. An audio tape with public service an-nouncements that can be customized for each com-munity or organization also is included. Cost is $37a kit (stock M)65-000-00680-4). Contact: Supt. ofDocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office, MailStop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328; 202-512-1800; Fax: 202-512-2250. -reprinted from Science

Leadership Trend Notes, March 1995

School Science and Mathematics