An experiment in validating objectives for the curriculum in elementary school science

Misconceptions of selected science concepts held by elementary school students

“…Each of these studies utilized an interview technique to obtain student explanations and then classified the explanations into categories. Anderson' used the following categories: (1) atomistic, (2) animalistic and religious, (3) abstract, and (4) failure to explain. The categories for classifying student responses used by Keislar and McNeil' were: (1) mechanical explanations, (2) animistic and religious explanations, (3) abstract interpretations, and (4) failure to explain.…”

“…Anderson' used the following categories: (1) atomistic, (2) animalistic and religious, (3) abstract, and (4) failure to explain. The categories for classifying student responses used by Keislar and McNeil' were: (1) mechanical explanations, (2) animistic and religious explanations, (3) abstract interpretations, and (4) failure to explain. Pella and Ziegler3 classified the unacceptable explanations in their study as follows: (1) descripti~n or restatement of the observations of the demonstrated phenomena, (2) description utilizing common experiences and terminology which may or may not be science related, (3) description based upon logic derived from common experience, (4) description in terms of a dynamic impersonal force within the system, and ( 5 ) no explanation.…”

The model identification test: A limited verbal science test

“…The interview and clinical approach to evaluation has provided valuable insight into chldren's understandings of science concepts. There have been a number of investigations into elementary children's understandings of concepts from the conceptual scheme "the particle nature of matter" [13][14][15][16][17][18]. These studies were helpful in formulating the present study, but they also point out the time consuming nature of the approach and the limitation because of the subject's inability to verbalize his understandings.…”

“…Particles of a gas striking a surface push against it. 13. Particles of matter (molecules) can sometimes be broken down into small particles (atoms).…”

Teaching concepts of energy to nigerian children in the 7–11 year‐old age range

“…Some studies (Kuse, 1963;Billeh & Pella, 1970;Helgeson, 1968) have found that it is possible to lay a foundation in the first grade for much of the knowledge essential for the understanding of more complex and abstract concepts in the later grades. Others, such as the study of a group of 72 pupils to determine their conceptualization of condensation and evaporation, found that explanations of a theoretical nature were extremely rare although they did occur more frequently at the third grade level than at the fust grade level (McNeil & Keislar, 1962). Young (1958), who studied the nature of selected understandings of atomic energy attained by children in grades three and six, found that many children in both groups gave responses related to the structure and uses of atomic energy.…”