Sharp (2000:85) identified
“Children’s involvement in formulating their ideas, attempting to communicate them and listening to alternative explanations by their peers is a valuable learning process.”
To enable a clear understanding of children’s ideas were generated it was thought that through children drawing their ideas as well as discussing them would not only highlight their ideas but would also be valuable for assessment purposes. Harlen (2000:125) highlights “children’s drawings give particularly rich information about their ideas.”
Throughout the drawing of pictures, the children were required to think about what the objects were before and before that. The drawings provided us with a clear insight into the children’s thoughts and ideas. Sharp (2000) highlights through discussions with children, about their pictures, enable their ideas to be clarified and explained upon.
As well as drawing pictures, the children were asked to write a brief description of what the various objects were prior to what they are now. Harlen (2000) identified that through writing, children’s ideas may prove more productive. Within the writing, children expressed their ideas more thoroughly than within the pictures and recorded how some of the objects had been a different object prior to the object they are now.
Despite whether the children had managed to figure out and draw what each object had been before it was the one they were looking at, when focusing on the writing the children’s ideas were not only highlighted but also explained as to why they thought that. This emphasised the benefit of using writing within a lesson in order to find out children’s ideas.
Peacock (1997:42) acknowledged that when engaging on a new topic in the classroom it is important to find out “what children already know and believe”
When discussing with the children what bread had been before it was actually bread some of the children expressed that bread had been wheat.
This proved quite difficult, as what the child was saying was not entirely incorrect. Here my partner and I had to explain that wheat is used to make flour and flour is used to make bread, therefore bread had not exactly been wheat before it had been made into bread, but flour had been wheat before it had actually been flour.
If this lesson was repeated, I would either change some of the objects focused on or make bread with children beforehand. In the situation, with what we were faced it was decided that the making of bread would be undertaken as an extension activity so the children could see clearly what the bread had been prior to it being made into bread.
Jarvis (1991:3) supports this view and suggests
“Practical opportunities are needed to enable children to accept alternative interpretations as well as to confirm accepted beliefs.”
Within the lesson, children’s ideas were discussed as a whole class and with the benefit of hindsight, it may have proved more effective if the children had been given the chance to work in small groups. Jarvis (1991) emphasised that when children work in small groups as opposed to the whole class they are able to share their ideas and provide effective participation. Group work also supports the less able members of the group and some children are more likely to share their ideas within a small group than to the whole class.
From completing the school based task, it was highlighted to me, that it is beneficial to find out about children’s ideas prior to teaching as children’s ideas have an affect on the way a lesson is planned, taught and delivered. Dickinson and Flick (1999) maintained that the teacher’s knowledge of children’s ideas is an “important component of pedagogical content knowledge.”
Through finding out about children’s ideas it is also possible to develop, extend, challenge and strengthen children’s ideas. However, Harlen (1997) emphasises that the approach of finding out about children’s ideas known, as ‘constructive learning’ is important in considering what will happen next once children’s ideas have been explored.
The Primary SPACE Projects identified a cycle of teaching (cited in Harlen 1997) to be considered when using the ‘constructive learning’ approach. This involves providing opportunity for exploration and involvement, finding out ideas, reflecting, helping children to develop their ideas and process skills and assessing change in ideas and process skills.
Harlen (1997:51) highlights that ‘constructive learning’ may provide some difficulties as although children’s ideas can have an affect on the way a lesson is planned, taught and delivered
“it may appear too difficult to find about the idea’s of all the children in a class and to take account of al the children in a class and to take account of all this information in planning activities.”
Therefore Harlen (1997:59) incorporates the ‘matching approach’. Harlen describes matching as
“finding the balance between presenting something which is so far away from previous experience that children cannot engage with it with their existing ideas and presenting something which is too simple and familiar to test and extend skills and skills.”
Harlen acknowledges matching at two levels- macroscopic and microscopic matching. Macroscopic matching is when learning objectives are taught to the whole class at the correct level. Microscopic matching is when each individual child is able to extend their learning at their own level and understanding.
Matching is an essential process after finding out about children’s ideas. It ensures the whole class is gaining benefit and gives the whole class a chance to achieve and understand the learning objectives of the lesson. Matching highlights how beneficial it is in finding out about children’s ideas before teaching. It ensures that children’s ideas can be clarified, tested, discussed and extended and also can dispose any misconceptions.
Posner et al (1982) as cited by Dickinson and Flick (1999) highlighted that the recognition of children’s ideas is imperative in order for children to develop a conceptual understanding of science content.
Through the extension activity, it was possible to show children what different objects have been prior to what they are now. However if it wasn’t for finding out about children’s ideas beforehand then this may have not been noted. As Anderson and Smith (1986) cited by Dickinson and Flick (1999) pointed out, through results on a school study “children can proceed through school and retain misconceptions about many science concepts.” From finding out children’s ideas, my partner and I were also able to use the knowledge of the children to help scaffold them to more accurate levels of understanding.
Dickinson and Flick (1999) illustrated that through gaining knowledge of children’s ideas it is possible for children to develop more accurate understandings of science.
Through the school based task it has been highlighted what techniques are beneficial in obtaining children’s ideas and the value of using them prior to teaching a lesson. As Dickinson and Flick (1999) asserts
“The ability to orchestrate discussions that elicit children’s ideas and help children build on and change them, is an important component of effective science instruction.”
Bibliography
Harlen. W 1997 The teaching of Science in Primary Schools
Second Edition
David Fulton
London
Harlen.W 2000 Teaching, learning and assessing Science
Third Edition
Paul Chapman
London
Jarvis.T 1991 Children and Primary Science
Cassell
London
Peacock.A 1997 Opportunities for Science in the Primary Science
Trentham Books
London
Sharp.J 2000 Primary Science, Teaching theory and Practice
Learning Matters
Exeter
Electronic Sources
Dickinson and Flick 1999
Children’s Ideas in Science
Oregon State University
29/11/01