S.10-84
OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC AND ASSOCIATE PROVOST
MEMORANDUM
ATTENTION
FROM
RE:
8888
University
Drive, Burnaby, BC
Canada V5A
lS6
Senate
Rolf Mathewes,
Acting Chair
TEL:
778.782.4636
FAX: 778.782.5876
DATE
PAGES
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies
Faculty
of Education (SCUS
10-27)
For information:
May 7, 2010
1/1
www.sfu.ca/vpacademic
Acting under delegated authority at its meeting of May 6, 2010, SCUS approved the following
curriculum revisions:
(i) New Course Proposal: EDUC 484, Exploring Students' Scientific Misconceptions
Senators wishing to consult a more detailed report of
curriculum
revisions may do so on
http://www.sfu.ca/senate/Senate agenda.html
following the posting
of the
agenda.
If
you
are unable to access the information, please call 778-782-3168 or email
mlg7@sfu.ca
.
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
THINKING OF THE WORLD
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Senate Committee for Undergraduate Studies
NEW COURSE PROPOSAL
Course Number:
EDUC
484~
.,;6 q.
Course Title: Exploring Students' Scientific Misconceptions
AND
Short - for registration/transcript no more than 30 characters including spaces/punctuation
Scientific
Misconceptions
State number of hours for Lect ( ) Sem (4) Tut ( ) Lab ( )
Course Description (for Calendar). Attach a course outline to this proposal.
Examines scientific misconceptions on two levels. IAitisl
fQ~w.s
is 9A
\!AelerstaRelil'\~
tkQ
nature and origins of a selestigp of
Jean:u~rs'
common misconceptions about the
physical, material and living world. Seeel'\el is
A
critical examination of what it means
to have a "misconception" and an exploration of different models and strategies for
helping learners cbange problematic ideas.
~\A.~-\-a:ri.,,-e....
-\-0
c."o..\~e..
~ Y"I'\.d:;~y
Prerequisite: EDUC
401/402
or corequisite EDUC 403
Corequisite: None
Special Instructions: None
Course(s) to be dropped if this course is approved:
None.
Rationale for Introduction of this Course:
The Faculty of Education currently has a very limited number of undergraduate
offerings in the area of science education. In particular there is no course that
addresses the issue of scientific misconceptions. Scientific misconceptions are
persistent and stubborn student ideas about the natural world (physical, chemical,
biological) that differ from those accepted by domain experts. These ideas are
generally developed through students' interactions with the everyday world (e.g.
Clement, 1982; McCloskey, 1983) before students ever set foot in a science classroom
and instruction will not change these ideas unless they are specifically drawn out and
addressed (e.g. Guzzetti, Synder, Glass
&
Gamas, 1993; Metioui, Brassard, Levasseur,
&
Lavoie, 1996). Due to their remarkable prevalence and intractability, understanding
SCUS 2006
,
the origins of misconceptions and supporting students in the process of conceptual
change is perhaps
the
most critical challenge for science educators.
There is a well-established body of literature empirically examining student
misconceptions
and their origins (e.g. Carey, 1985, Gentner
&
Steven, 1983). In
addition, the research goes beyond simply identifying misconceptions to study the
processes by which these ideas can be changed (e.g. Posner, Striker, Hewson &
Gertzog, 1982; Smith, diSessa,
&
Roschelle, 1994; Slotta
&
Chi, 2006). In a landmark
book synthesizing thirty years of research on how people learn and its implications Jor
teaching, the U.S. National Research Council (2000) proclaimed:
"Schools of education must provide beginning teachers with
opportunities to
learn (a) to recognize predictable preconceptions of
students that make the mastery of particular subject matter challenging,
(b) to draw out preconceptions that are not predictable, and (c) to work
with preconceptions so that children build on them, challenge them
and when appropriate, replace them." (p 20)
This course aims to fulfill these goals in a way that is appropriate for science teachers
of all levels: elementary teachers who integrate the study of the living and physical
world into their classroom; middle-school teachers who teach integrated or dedicated
science classes; and high school teachers who teach in a particular science domain.
This is
possible because scientific misconceptions are related to fundamental
concepts used at all levels and misconceptions related to these fundamental concepts
often persist (despite instruction to the contrary) throughout a student's K-12
experience.
References
Carey, S. (1985).
Conceptual change in childhood.
Cambridge: MA: MIT
Press/Bradford Books
Clement,
J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics.
American
Journal of Physics, 50, 66-71.
Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.) (1983).
Mental models.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
McCloskey,
M. (1983). NaIve theories of motion. In D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Eds.)
Mental models.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Metioui, A., Brassard,
C., Levasseur, J. & Lavoie, M. (1996). The persistence of
students' unfounded beliefs about electrical circuits: The case of Ohm's law.
International Journal of Science Education, 18(2),
193-212.
Guzzetti,
B., Snyder, T., Glass, G., & Gamas, W. (1993). Promoting conceptual change
in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from
reading education and science education.
Reading Research Quarterly,
28, 117-
159.
SCUS 2006
2
National Research Council. (2000).
How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Posner, G.
J., Striker, K. A., Hewson, P.W.,
&
Gertzog, W.A. (1982) Accommodation of
a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.
Science
Education
66(2), 211-221.
Slotta J.,
&
Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in
science through ontology training.
Cognition and Instruction,
24(2), 261-289.
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A.A.,
&
Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A
constructivist analysis of
knowledge in transition.
Journal
of
the Learning
Sciences,
3(2) 115-163.
Scheduling and Registration Information:
Annual offering in the summer semester beginning in Summer 2010.
There is a two-semester wait for implementation of any new course.
WMverrequ~ed
__________
~
__________ __
Will this be a required or elective course in the curriculum?
Elective
What is the probable enrolment when offered?
30
(course filled max capacity of
30
students when offered as a special topics course in
Summer 2009)
Which of your present CFL faculty have the expertise to offer this course?
Dr. Alyssa Wise
Are there any proposed student fees associated with this course other than tuition
fees? (if so, attach mandatory supplementary fee approval form)
No
Resource Implications:
Note: Senate has approved (S.93-11) that no new course should be approved by
Senate until funding has been committed for necessary library materials. Each
new course proposal must be accompanied by a library report and,
if
appropriate, cOnIumation that funding arrangements have been addressed.
Campus where course will be taught:
""S~u",-,rr,-"e'!..JY'-----
_________________ _
Library report status No additional library resources are required for this course
SCUS 2006
3
Provide details on how existing instructional resources will be redistributed to
accommodate this new course: Course is already being offered as aSpecial Topics
course, regularizing the offering will not require additional instructional resources.
Any outstanding resource issues to be addressed prior to implementation:
None
A.pprovals
1. Departmental approval indicates that the Department has approved the
content of the course, and has consulted with other Departments and Faculties
regarding proposed course content and overlap issues.
Ch.
alr,
n'n~
l~~
Date
Chair, Faculty Curriculum Committee
Date
2.
Faculty approval indicates that all the necessary course content and overlap
concerns have b en resolved, and that the Faculty/Department commits to
provi
t e
ibrary funds.
__________________________________ Date: __________________ __
Dean or Designate
List
which other Departments and Faculties have been consulted regarding the
proposed course content including overlap issues.
Attach documentary evidence
of
responses.
Other Faculties approval indicates that the Dean(s) or designate of other
Faculties affected by the proposed new course support(s) the approval of the new
course.
__________________________________ Date: __________________ ___
__________________________________ Date: __________________ ___
SCUS 2006
4
