Literature Review 

     This section focuses on the findings of articles regarding electricity and its misconceptions. Throughout this summary, there are many topics that will be discussed; misconceptions, teaching styles, theories, and strategies used for instruction. Electricity, and more specifically conductors, insulators, and its path are something that, as a fourth grade teacher, I am responsible for my students’ understanding. They are required to understand and perform experimental tasks regarding this concept on the New York State Science Assessment. In the past I have had students give a wide variety of explanations of what electricity is, where it comes from, and what makes it travel a path. Since this is a barrier that I needed to overcome to be sure my students master this concept, I felt it is necessary to research electricity and its misconceptions in the elementary grades. My thoughts are to find a successful technique, teaching strategy, understanding of the derivation of misconception, and current theory.

     The New York State Science Assessment is the overall summative assessment that is based off of our New York State and national standards. The standards are what determine the content of our teachings. These should align with the summative expectations. As stated by Bena Kallick and Jeff Colosimo, this allows individual teachers to redesign curriculum to fit their own classroom and the needs of their students (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p. 3).  There has often been a noticeable difference between written curriculum and the taught curriculum (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p.4). This stems from the requirement of using scripted programs, where as a teacher needs to be sure that it aligns with the standards and the students learning. The written curriculum of this unit was designed to fit the schedule and students of a specific setting; however, the content aligns directly with the New York State and National standards. The scheduling could be easily modified to adapt to yet another fourth grade with identical requirements.

     To decide actual content and approach, three guiding questions proposed by Kallick & Colosimo were used: 1) What do you want students to know and be able to do? 2) What evidence do you have they are achieving?  3) What are you doing about students who are not achieving? (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p. 12). These three questions are the guiding light for this unit and were answered based on the requirements of the actual standards. This particular curriculum was mapped using guidance of the acronym mentioned by Kallick & Colosimo, SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-driven) (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p. 7). Although this acronym is used to describe a district’s approach to stay in focus while in the process of mapping, it is easily manipulated into an individual approach as a teacher for means of this project. The content was specific and aligned to one requirement, the New York State Science standards. As Kallick and Colosimo state, aligning to the standards means that there will be serious focus and intention for instruction and assessment to target that particular standard (Kallick & Colosimo,2009, p. 18). The learning and understanding is measurable due to the formative and summative assessments given throughout. The learning and goals based on standards are attainable by the students due to the instructional process and content. The learning is realistic due to direct connection to our everyday lives. The unit is also time driven to set a level of mastery in a timely fashion to achieve on the New York State summative assessment. The development of this curriculum has been carefully mapped to assure that there is both internal alignment as well as external alignment (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p.19). The internal alignment assures that the content of electricity, skills required, assessments, and the fifteen lessons are all aligned to one another. All of these components scaffold and support one another which align with the expectations of the assessment. The external alignment requires that all of the content and skills align with the standards (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p.19).  

     Data from previous New York State Science Assessments was analyzed in the design of this unit and guidance to structure the summative assessments in this unit. The content of the lesson is based on data: performance results from summative assessments. These state tests are aligned with the current state standards (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p. 29). Performance results from local benchmarks align to these same standards (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p. 29). The curriculum, lesson plans, and classroom assessments also align to these standards (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p. 29). Establishing this focus eliminates the repetition and gaps often found in instruction. It is important that the assessments targeted to the content and skills listed in the map (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p. 20). It was decided whether the assessment targeted one or more of the standards (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p. 20). It is a necessity that there is a good balance of opportunities for students to demonstrate their understanding. The summative assessments included in this unit provide opportunity for experimentation, manipulation of lab materials, data collection, short and long answer response, as well as picture/ text matching. The assessments require previously mastered skills such as listening, following written directions, reflection, summarizing, and sequencing. The midterm summative assessment acts as a benchmark to this unit, however, this content is also on the end of unit summative assessment. These assessments are designed using Blooms Taxonomy requiring a higher level of thinking, and explanation from the students (Kallick & Colosimo, 2009, p.22). This parallels the vocabulary and format of required future assessments such as the New York State Science Assessment (Kallick & Colosimo, et al). The assessments are given at a half way point as well as a final rather than every quarter through the unit. The formative assessments throughout give opportunity to differentiate and reteach when needed. The benchmark assessment will be analyzed immediately which allows time for the teacher to reteach and assist students in their learning process to achieve a mastery understanding before moving on. At this point, the data has been analyzed to guide future instruction. The instructor provides accommodations for students through differentiation, such as to simplify directions, read and explain, word choice options, word banks, and small group setting with the teacher.

     This unit is designed to develop a higher level of thinking and responding. The challenges are structured around “Blooms Taxonomy” which allows for a greater conceptual understanding (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl, 1956). The lessons allow for students to work collaboratively, with partners, and as an overall classroom community. It allows for students to make direct connections to the content and their own lives. Students are able to create, evaluate, analyze, apply, understand, and remember their learning experience and master the content (Bloom et al., 1956). It is important to understand the research taken into consideration when designing this unit. Several actual case studies and other research pieces have been the basis of design and intent.

     The first article being addressed is “How Primary School Students Understand Mains Electricity and its Distribution” by Vassiliki Pilatou and Heleni Stavirdou. The link of electricity and its application in everyday life is the main focus, more specifically the use of three appliances and its occurrence. Student’s misconceptions of electricity are verified and instruction is designed to correct this. “Qualters (1994) investigation showed that children (ages 9-12) are not clear about where electricity comes from and they hold many different theories about its origin, while Bullock (1992) came to the conclusion that, by experimenting with electricity, primary grade children (6 years old) can begin to understand some basic concepts (e.g. where electricity lives)” (Pilatou & Stavirdou, 2004).  Students of a school in Volos-Greece are broken up into two different groups intended for instruction of electricity and its origin. One group will use a traditional approach where another will use a collaborative learning environment. Prior to instruction, an investigation was held, finding that both groups have their own misconceptions of the origin of electricity. “The origin of electricity is the electrical socket” (Pilatou & Stavirdou, et al). Students also suggest, “The three appliances can work together at the same time because the electrical current is powerful and exists everywhere” (Pilatou & Stavirdou, et al). Student’s misconceptions were illustrated by drawing one cable to a house and each electrical device. The end result is a group of students instructed in a traditional format using materials such as worksheets, opposed to a collaborative group using nontraditional methods. The traditionally instructed group showed no end development, where as the collaboratively instructed group did show gains and understanding. Traditionally instructed groups did not show improvements in understanding of the parallel circuit, where electricity comes from, or how the operation of three appliances is possible at once. Illustrations in post-assessment showed a less sufficient level of understanding of concepts in comparisons to pre-assessment. The experimental group instructed from a collaborative standpoint did show gains in all aspects of this concept as well as misconceptions corrected (Pilatou & Stavirdou, et al).

     This research proves two major points: children do in fact have misconceptions regarding concepts and alternative teaching methods need to be incorporated to correct misconceptions and teach for understanding of these concepts. “The innovative elements of this new environment concern the content to be taught as well as the process of teaching and learning,” (Pilatou & Stavirdou, et al). Although this study does focus on schools outside of our country, learning can be founded from this and pertain it to our teacher instructional methodology. It is proven that the collaborative technique was successful. A constructivist collaborative educational package was in fact constructed for teachers, which could be directly applied to the classroom and used for training materials for prospective and in-service primary teachers.

An inference can be concluded regarding our teachings; professional development concerning instructional methods, as well as familiarizing content, could be beneficial to teaching for understanding and correcting misconceptions. 

     The next article of discussion is “Making Pupils’ Conceptions of Electricity More Durable by Situated Metacognition” by Petros Georghiades. The focus again is that children do in fact have misconceptions of electricity and an effective instructional strategy is researched. “Number of studies conducted worldwide indicates that students still have many difficulties and misunderstandings after systematic instruction” (Georghiades, 2004). The key component in this research is the idea of “durability” (Georghiades, et al). According to Bjork (as cited in Georghiades, et al), “First, prevailing among the aims pursued by schooling and education is the need to prepare future citizens to use the skills and knowledge accumulated over their school-lives in real life settings. Second, we want learning to be durable in the sense in surviving periods of discuses, in the post training environment itself, it further learning is to be based on existing structures.” According to Baird and Mitchell, (as cited in Georghiades, et al) “General metacognition is what we would consider to be general thinking skills.” “Situated metacognition is practiced in the current content of normal lessons and within the time allocated for the teaching of curriculum subject matter, aimed at improving learners performance in the specific content taught by facilitating better understanding” (Georghiades, et al). 

     After analyzing the data myself there were a few major differences between general and situated metacognition. In general metacognition, the instruction is explicit and in situated, it is blended in to activities. Situated metacognition focuses on specific subject matter to assure better understanding where as general metacognition simply improves general thinking across contexts.

Another key component is that general metacognition is often taught as an overall method during a separate explicit instructional time, whereas the situated metacognition is specific to the context and blended within. The findings were that if practiced early enough, the buildup of knowledge was able to be scaffold upon throughout the school career (Georghiades, et al).  “Although metacognitive thinking does not necessarily lead to greater amounts of knowledge, it seems it can have a positive impact on the strength or depth of children’s constructed conceptions” (Georghiades, et al).  By implementing the strategies addressed in the discussion of the differences, it was determined that there was a dual positive outcome, both short term and long term. “Short term because the positive impact of metacognition activity may reflect on a children’s understanding of taught materials. Hence maintaining better performance in the subject- area covered. Long term impact, on the other hand, could stem from accumulated experience of metacognitive activity gained by the pupils as a result of their systematic enculturation in metacognition throughout their school year(s)” (Georghiades, et al).

     The next article “Academic Impact of Learning Objects: The case of the Electric Circuits” by Tomi Jaakkola & Sami Nurmi focuses on effective teaching methods to give students a better understanding of electricity. “There have been several attempts to overcome the difficulties in electricity learning. Traditional electricity teaching using textual learning material, concrete application tasks or hands-on laboratory work has been quite ineffective” (Jaakkola & Nurmi, 2004). A pre-test was given consisting of four questions and establishing in fact that students do have misconceptions of electricity. The aim was to provide new methods of effective teaching; three groups of 10-11 year olds were structured and instructed using three different approaches. The first group was a laboratory group similar to teaching approaches used currently where students build circuits and test objects for properties of conductors or insulators. The second group was the simulation group where students used an “Electricity Exploration Tool” (online simulation) to build circuits and observe them functioning. They were also able to measure the voltage with a multimeter. The third group was a mixed group, which used the “Electricity Exploration Tool” and real circuits. They were required to build and observe the circuits on the simulation prior to building them with the circuit materials. The day after the instructional procedures a post-test was given containing the same four questions. Overall the combined simulation and laboratory method did show growth and better understanding (Jaakkola & Nurmi, et al). “Content analysis showed that the simulation helped the students to acquire scientifically accepted model of current flow, but only the simulation-laboratory groups comprehension of current division in a DC circuit advanced statistically significantly from pre-test to post-test” (Jaakkola & Nurmi, et al). It was also determined that students with prior background knowledge remained above and showed more growth than those without a background. In conclusion, it can be suggested that a simulation combined with laboratory activities is an effective method of instruction of electrical circuits and correcting misconceptions. 

 

Works Cited

 

This free website was made using Yola.

No HTML skills required. Build your website in minutes.

Go to www.yola.com and sign up today!

Make a free website with Yola