Animal Misconceptions
In relation to the initial intention of the interviews, the student responses collected in this research wholly reinforce the idea that a child’s previously grasped perceptions about animal classification can be somewhat flawed and should be subject to further instruction in order to successfully clarify common errors. The interesting aspect about these findings and misconceptions, however, is the origin from which they were developed. Some of the observed misconceptions came from the child’s own personal fabrications about classifying animals and other organisms. For example, no teacher or textbook has ever intentionally instructed that mammals are classified as such because of their ability to swim; yet, Student A was insistent that humans
…show more content…
Take into consideration Student C, who adamantly claimed that a penguin was an amphibian because it spends a fair amount of time in water. Though this misconception seems absurd at first glance, especially considering the stubby wings and soft feathers that are evident in the physical appearance of a penguin, the reasoning provided for such a belief somewhat warranted the confusion. When asked to further justify this choice of classification, Student C iterated that penguins are often displayed in big aquariums at zoos or are photographed on floating ice caps in the Arctic Ocean for biology and science textbooks (Appendix F). Because of these aquatic tendencies and attributes, students rightfully misclassify penguins and other water creatures, like dolphins, as belonging to amphibious or fish-like classes. These findings are compatible with those earlier discussed in Martin Braund’s study (1991), which also focused on the typical physical and environmental depictions of animals as the source for common student misconceptions. Ultimately, a student’s logic, though realistically flawed, is superficially valid, providing some warrant and justification for bogus …show more content…
Interestingly enough, the students offered key insight toward a different type of cognitive phenomenon, that is, the understanding that knowledge of any type can be contested. This would be better explained with an example, like that provided by Student C. Upon classifying a penguin as an amphibian, this particular participant expressed that some people think penguins are birds because of their wings, or that others may classify them as fish because of their swimming capabilities (Appendix F). Though the student’s final classification of the organism was incorrect, he was very confident in knowing this was a concept that people commonly struggled with. Success in seeing things from others’ perspectives demonstrates transcendence above egocentrism and even speaks to the ability to think metacognitively about the thought process of others. Understanding how others arrive at their own flawed convictions and theories could eventually be extremely helpful in correcting flaws of the student’s own. Developmentally speaking, this student and others like him are perhaps the more moldable minds of today’s classrooms, willing to readily resolve these detrimental
Take into consideration Student C, who adamantly claimed that a penguin was an amphibian because it spends a fair amount of time in water. Though this misconception seems absurd at first glance, especially considering the stubby wings and soft feathers that are evident in the physical appearance of a penguin, the reasoning provided for such a belief somewhat warranted the confusion. When asked to further justify this choice of classification, Student C iterated that penguins are often displayed in big aquariums at zoos or are photographed on floating ice caps in the Arctic Ocean for biology and science textbooks (Appendix F). Because of these aquatic tendencies and attributes, students rightfully misclassify penguins and other water creatures, like dolphins, as belonging to amphibious or fish-like classes. These findings are compatible with those earlier discussed in Martin Braund’s study (1991), which also focused on the typical physical and environmental depictions of animals as the source for common student misconceptions. Ultimately, a student’s logic, though realistically flawed, is superficially valid, providing some warrant and justification for bogus …show more content…
Interestingly enough, the students offered key insight toward a different type of cognitive phenomenon, that is, the understanding that knowledge of any type can be contested. This would be better explained with an example, like that provided by Student C. Upon classifying a penguin as an amphibian, this particular participant expressed that some people think penguins are birds because of their wings, or that others may classify them as fish because of their swimming capabilities (Appendix F). Though the student’s final classification of the organism was incorrect, he was very confident in knowing this was a concept that people commonly struggled with. Success in seeing things from others’ perspectives demonstrates transcendence above egocentrism and even speaks to the ability to think metacognitively about the thought process of others. Understanding how others arrive at their own flawed convictions and theories could eventually be extremely helpful in correcting flaws of the student’s own. Developmentally speaking, this student and others like him are perhaps the more moldable minds of today’s classrooms, willing to readily resolve these detrimental