Helping Teachers Attend to Student Thinking

Jim Minstrell
Talaria Inc.

While research on how people learn attests to the importance of attending to students' initial and developing understanding, teachers typically have not been trained to do this, and their instructional materials typically do not appropriately or sufficiently address this concern (NRC, 1999 and Roseman, 1999.). Professional development is needed to assist teachers in learning how to identify students' preconceptions and to design or adapt activities to foster change from preconceptions toward more scientific understanding.

In this brief essay I will use an example to define what I mean by attending to students' thinking when planning and implementing instruction. I will cite several reasons for attending to students' thinking and describe some ways to begin to do so. Finally, I will identify some tools that can be used to support professional development for diagnosing and attending to students' preconceptions.

What Does It Mean to Attend to Students' Thinking?
Ask most teachers if they pay attention to students' thinking when planning and implementing instruction and they will say, almost indignantly, "of course!" A few years ago I was talking with a fellow teacher and the conversation went something like the following:

This teacher was a good, well intending teacher. His students did fairly well at following the procedures he taught them. But, when challenged with a conceptual problem, they didn't perform very well. Basically this teacher knew that students had trouble with the idea and that he would have to "stress" it. In assessment he determined only whether students got the answer right or wrong, but he didn't really know much about students' thinking and so could not tune his lessons to the specific difficulties of students.

Suppose doctors practiced medicine with this same low level of diagnostic investigation. Doctors would understand only how the body functioned when healthy. They would recognize when it wasn't normal, but not specifically what wasn't normal about it. For intervention, doctors would "stress" healthy diet and exercise, but not a treatment specific to the health problem. Diagnostics would be stuck on the dichotomy, healthy or not, and prescriptions would be stuck on the patient "doing the right thing," more of the proper diet and exercise. I suspect few of us would want to go back to that level of medical service. And yet, that is what we do in education.

Following the lead by medical practice, we could be doing more to understand students' thinking when planning and implementing instruction. Consider Newton's Third Law again. From research on students' understanding of forces during interaction we know that students are greatly influenced by salient features in situations. For example, when we ask them why they said that one object exerted a greater force than the other during the interaction, they may explain by saying, "That object is bigger than the other." "Bigger," "heavier," "stronger," "more active," and "causes more effect" are typical rationales given by students.

Even when students say that the forces are equal, their rationale typically involves a compensation between these salient features. For example, "when these two people are leaning on one another, there must be equal forces or they would fall over. The leaning man is stronger, but the woman is lower, so she has the angle on him, but she has to be more active to make up for his greater strength." Sometimes students will recite the memorized "equal and opposite action and reaction" but will nevertheless give a compensation argument to justify why the action and reaction idea works in this situation.

Knowing that these are typical students' ideas can help us focus instruction. We can now design or choose very particular Third Law activities that allow students to test their specific ideas. For example, to allow students to test the idea that "stronger objects will exert greater forces," I created two identical looking magnets. I began with two identical empty small containers. To one of the empty containers I added several ceramic magnets with the same alignment of polarity. To the other container I put in only a couple of ceramic magnets, but again with same alignment of polarity. Then, I added lead shot to the lighter container so the masses of the containers would be the same. Finally, I added glue to each to stabilize the contents and seal the containers. Thus, they looked, felt, and weighed the same. But, when one held each above a paper clip on the table, one magnetic container was clearly stronger. The strong magnetic container would pick up the paper clip from a distance of about three centimeters off the table, while the weaker magnetic container would pick up the paper clip only when it was within about a half centimeter. To the students, clearly one was stronger when interacting with the paper clip. But, all other variables were controlled, i.e., the same for both containers. When these two containers were placed one in each hand, oriented so they would repel each other, nearly all students predicted one hand would feel a greater force, although they differed on which hand would feel the greater force. Since this procedure indirectly measures the force that each container would exert on the other, it allowed students to test their idea that the stronger one would exert a greater force than the weaker one.

One at a time, students "tried" to feel a different force, but there was no agreement. As a whole, students concluded that the containers must be exerting approximately equal forces on each other. This was before they had been told anything about action-reaction or Newton's Third Law. But, now they had an alternative hypothesis, "perhaps they exert equal forces on each other," to consider along with their "stronger implies more force during interaction" hypothesis. There were other mini-experiments to try, e.g., a strong (stiff) spring and a long, weak rubber band hooked together, or an obviously strong student and a small, apparently weaker, student pushing on each others' spring scales (bathroom scales). Still, students could not detect any difference, even though, in each case, one interacting object was clearly stronger than the other.

From several of these sorts of experiences, learners began considering, and holding a tentative, alternative hypothesis, that interacting objects exerted equal forces on each other, even if one was stronger than the other. Similar experiences allowed students to test the effects of the other salient features. In each case, it appeared an "equal forces" hypothesis seemed to be supported, rather than one force being greater than the other. After learners had induced the viability of the "equal forces" idea, I could introduce Newton's action-reaction law and commend the students on having come to the same conclusion as someone so noted as Newton.

The important point here is that through a better understanding of students' thinking, knowing the specific ideas and reasoning, I could craft particular activities that would allow them to predict outcomes and test their rationale. I was not simply doing any old demonstrations of the law. I chose particular demonstrations or experiments that addressed each of the students' initial ideas. Students were testing their ideas and becoming prepared to create their own law, which could then also be supported by work of the noted authority. In the medical jargon, I was "diagnosing" the potential learning problem and "prescribing" an instructional treatment specifically to address the diagnosed problem.

Why Should We Attend to Students' Thinking?
When teachers have adopted this view of learners, that they have ideas that can be tested, challenged, and reconstructed, teachers get results that they hadn't been able to obtain before. Instead of pre-post changes of 30-40 percent toward the target understandings, teachers identifying their students' understanding and designing their instruction to address these understandings are seeing pre-post changes of 50-80 percent.

These teachers are now integrating pre-instruction questions to elicit students' thinking at the beginning of most units. In preparing for teaching they use this information to inform the design or modification of lessons. They monitor students' thinking through the use of embedded diagnostic questions along the way. Then they tune next lessons to address perceived inadequacies. In end-of-unit assessment and end-of-grading-period assessment, these teachers use questions that check beyond whether students got the answers right or wrong; they also try to identify and characterize the sorts of problematic understanding that still exist. Then, in subsequent lessons or in revising the instructional program for next year, they incorporate what they have learned into the planning and implementing of future instruction.

The actions on the part of these teachers are consistent with nationally recommended actions. Both the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) recommend attending to students' conceptual difficulties. The U.S. Department of Education's guidelines (1999) for program evaluation includes a related criterion indicator, "The program's instructional design attends to students' prior knowledge and commonly held conceptions." These prestigious authorities are making such recommendations because research on learning indicates that better learning results from identifying and addressing students' preconceptions (NRC, 1999).

Understanding students' thinking and tuning instruction to address students' thinking takes more time. Fewer topics can be addressed each year, but there are rewards of deeper, longer lasting understanding.

Tools to Assist Teachers in Learning to Identify and Attend to Students' Preconceptions
There are a number of materials available that will both encourage teachers to attend to student thinking and help them do so. The Minds of Their Own series of video tapes produced by the Harvard Smithsonian (Annenberg/CPB, 1997) is excellent in motivating teachers to attend to students' learning. Teachers can see examples of teaching and content that look like they ought to achieve the learning goals. However, they then see that the students don't actually come away understanding photosynthesis or current electricity, for example. There are follow-up examples of lessons that do address students' conceptions more successfully.

"Adopting a Different View of Learners" is another video that shows what can be accomplished when teachers identify and attend to students' thinking (Minstrell and Matteson (1993). In it teachers also describe the trials and tribulations of focusing on what students are learning and how it has changed their views of teaching.

Reading the Resources for Science Literacy: Curriculum Materials Evaluation produced by AAAS (Kulm, et al., 1999), the Guidelines and Materials for Submitting Science Programs for Review by the U.S. Department of Education (1999), or considering the research summary in National NRC publications on "How People Learn" (1999) effectively assist some teachers in seeing that attending to students' preconceptions is an important emphasis in curriculum and instruction. These documents justify the importance through research.

Seeing resulting performance on tests administered to one's own students has been very motivating for some teachers; they see that when instruction has not truly addressed student thinking, the students have not learned as much as expected. One conceptual test that has demonstrated effectiveness this way has been the Force Concept Inventory in introductory physics (Hestenes, et al., 1992.)

Once teachers are motivated to identify and attend to students' thinking the difficult work starts. To see what it looks like when teachers attend to students thinking we produced "Benchmark Science Lessons" on video. It contains several example lessons of a teacher posing questions to his classes and then essentially interviewing the class to elicit their preconceptions (Minstrell, 1989). Many pre-service and in-service teacher educators have used the video to help teachers see what a student idea centered environment might look like. Ensuing discussions typically include the roles of learners and teachers in effecting better learning.

A few books have been useful in our work in helping teachers learn more about the sorts of preconceptions students exhibit and in suggesting specific lessons or guidelines for lessons that address students' thinking. Making Sense of Secondary Science by Driver et al. (1994) has become a valuable resource for many teachers as they attempt to become knowledgeable about preconceptions and as they adapt their lessons to address students' thinking. Another good summary of research on students' conceptions is contained in NSTA's Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (1994). Arnold Arons' book, Teaching Introductory Physics, (1996) describes some students' conceptions and is excellent in describing important discriminations students need to have to effect deep conceptual understanding. Camp and Clement's (1994) book Preconceptions in mechanics: Lessons dealing with students' conceptual difficulties is extensive at describing students' apparent thinking with respect to a few topics in introductory physics. It follows the description of students' ideas with well engineered lessons that have been effective in testing students' preconceptions and promoting learning.

A few curricula have been developed to address students' thinking. Constructing Physics Understanding in a computer supported learning environment, CPU Project can be found at http://cpuproject.sdsu.edu, and the Modeling Physics Workshop can be found online. Both identify students' preconceptions then go on to suggest lessons that address students' problematic understanding.

Also, coming on line are web resources to address students' understanding. For example, one website presents elicitation questions for teachers to assess students' thinking at the beginning of a unit and then provides assistance for teachers as they attempt to interpret students' responses. Suggested guidelines for lessons to address students' thinking follow. The system also presents online diagnostic sets of questions for teachers to monitor students' development of understanding. (Please see www.facetinnovations.com/main/diag-meta.htm for reference to the site.)

How Might Professional Development Help Teachers Plan Curriculum and Instruction In Order to Attend to Students' Thinking?
Professional development can help teachers develop the knowledge and skills they need in order to attend to students' thinking in their instruction, which includes identifying the learning targets; finding out what their students are thinking; selecting activities to move students forward from where they are; and assessing their progress.

Helping Teachers Find Out What Their Students Are Thinking
A crucial step in the process is helping teachers identify clearly and specifically what it is that the students are supposed to know and be able to do by the end of their instruction and the students' efforts to learn.

Once teachers have specified the learning goals, they can then consult the growing body of research to find out what their students are likely to be thinking in these areas. It turns out that the misconceptions of any group of students new to studying a content area are similar. The troublesome ideas seem to be more characteristic of learners at a particular level of expertise than at a particular age. A collection of various resources should be accumulated for teacher access.

To facilitate the process, professional development providers may want to have resources on hand that teachers can use to find out about the typical misconceptions students hold. For example, The Driver, et al. (1994) book has been a popular resource for teachers. Chapter 15 of Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Project 2061, AAAS, 1993) lists resources associated with many of the benchmarks. NSTA's Handbook for Science Education (1994) also includes a substantial list of resources on students' conceptions.

At the same time, professional development providers need to be able to help teachers move forward when there are no relevant materials at hand. Groups of teachers can formulate questions about natural phenomena to use in interviewing students, with assistance from the professional development provider to make sure that the questions are appropriate and avoid using technical terms. For example, rather than asking about genes, DNA, and heredity directly, teachers can ask for an explanation of some situation that involves related ideas, e.g., "Why can't dogs and cats mate?"

Groups of teachers can also create "design and prediction" problems to try and find out what their students are thinking. For example, "Design (before you try it) a system with two pulleys such that you will be able to exert the least force to raise a 2 lb. weight, students would then be asked to explain their answers, e.g., "How did you decide on that answer?" "How does that answer make sense?" By interviewing students and/or having them carry out such design and prediction tasks, teachers can learn a great deal about their students' thinking.

Helping Teachers Select Activities to Close the Gap
If teachers know the targets and know what their students are thinking, they can plan and implement activities that will perturb problematic thinking and foster reconstruction of ideas, working from student thinking to cross the gap to the target ideas. In the example discussed earlier, my target was understanding forces during interaction (i.e. Newton's Third Law.) But many students were thinking "the stronger object exerts the greater force during interaction." I needed to help them cross the gap from what they were thinking to the learning target. With a small bit of creative thought, I came up with the interaction between the strong and weak magnetic containers. That allowed the students to test their "strength" idea. They found their initial idea didn't seem to work and were more open to looking for a new, better idea.

For teachers to attend to students' thinking, the students have to be doing the thinking about the situations and ideas. Verbal interaction with students can foster and support their development of ideas and reasoning as they cross the gap from preconceptions to the learning targets. Rather than telling the students what or how to think, without evaluating the students' responses, teachers need practice in reflecting responses back to students individually, or to the class. For example, "That is an interesting response, what do some of the rest of you think about that idea? Will that idea explain what we observed?" Get students sharing their ideas with each other. Encourage and guide them to be respectful and supportive of each other's sharing of ideas while at the same time being constructively critical of the tentative ideas. Then, listen to what students are saying. If you are not clear on their ideas, ask them to clarify the idea, e.g., "Can you say that another way? I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting, and it sounds interesting." Everybody likes to have someone interested in his/her ideas.

Teachers need also to understand the power of having students share their ideas with one another. It is not easy for students to be respectful and supportive of each other's sharing of ideas while at the same time being critical of the ideas. The teacher's role is to encourage and guide the students as they learn to be supportive of people but critical of ideas. At the same time, the teacher needs to listen carefully to what students are thinking, asking them to clarify the idea as needed.

By both modeling such behaviors and making these strategies explicit, professional development providers can help teachers develop an understanding of how to foster reflective discourse in the classroom (vanZee and Minstrell, 1997.)

Helping Teachers Assess How Thinking Has Changed
Cleverly designed assessment items contain opportunities for students to use the preconceptions (if they are tempted to do so) as well as the target ideas. Professional development providers can share items that do more than simply check on whether or not learners now have the "right" idea. Provide questions that also show what students, who have not yet attained the learning target, are now thinking, including the aspects that they have learned and what specifically they do not yet understand. These problematic student ideas can become the rationale for choice or adaptation of a next learning activity or at least the stimulus for revision of the program for next year. With assessment embedded periodically within the unit, the teacher can prevent students from getting too far before finding out students' thinking is not moving across the gap. Teachers can build in short cycles of quality control with respect to learning. For example, I used to hand out short questions to probe my students' thinking as we progressed through the unit. Later, I and colleagues at the University of Washington built a computerized Diagnoser to assist with diagnosing students' troublesome ideas in some topics of physics and prescribing mini-lessons to stimulate rethinking. (Please see www.diagnoser.com to access Diagnoser.)

In conclusion, in this short essay, I have tried to describe what it means to me to pay attention to students' thinking. The fact that research on learning and teaching has demonstrated that attending to students' thinking effects better learning has given authorities reason to include attention to students' thinking in criteria for good curriculum and good teaching. Finally, I presented a few guidelines for how to help teachers get started paying attention to students' thinking.

References

Annenberg/CPB (1997). Minds of our Own. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Smithsonian.

Arons, A. (1996). Teaching Introductory Physics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Camp, C. and Clement, J. et.al., (1994). Pre-conceptions in Mechanics: Lessons Dealing with Students' Conceptual Difficulties. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

CPU Project (2000). Constructing Physics Understanding in a Computer Supported Learning Environment. Armonk, NY: The Learning Team.

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P. and Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making Sense of Secondary Science: Research into Children's Ideas. London: Routledge.

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher. 30, 141-151.

Kulm, G., Roseman, J.E., & Treistman, M. (1999, July/August). A Benchmarks-based approach to textbook evaluation. In Science Books & Films, 35 (4), 147-153.

Minstrell, J. (1989). Benchmark Science Lessons. Unpublished video.

Minstrell, J. and Matteson, R.(1993). Adopting a Different view of Learners: Effects on Curriculum, Teachers, and Students. Unpublished video.

National Science Teachers Association (1994). D. Gabel (Ed.) Handbook of Research on science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan.

National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (1999). Donovan, S., Bransford, J., and Pellegrino, J. (Eds.). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Washington, D.C: Author.

Roseman, J.E., Kesidou, S., Stern, L., & Caldwell, A. (1999, November/December). Heavy books, light on learning: AAAS Project 2061 evaluates middle grades science textbooks. In Science Books & Films, 35 (6), 243-247.

U.S. Department of Education (1999). Guidelines and Materials for Submitting Science Programs for Review. Washington, D.C.: Author.

van Zee, E. and Minstrell, J. (1997). Developing shared understanding in a physics classroom. In The International Journal of Science Education, 1992.

TE-MAT Home    About TE-MAT    Database Overview    TE-MAT Descriptors    FAQs    Contact TE-MAT   

TE-MAT
Teacher Education Materials Project
A Database for K-12 Mathematics and Science Professional Development Providers