What students already know affects their learning
Dasha Bunks
Liberty University
PSYC 775 - Teaching of Psychology
Dr. Winn
2022
Explanation
Students come to classrooms with knowledge based on their everyday experiences, social
interactions, intuitions, and what they have been taught in other settings and in the past. This prior
knowledge affects how they will incorporate new learning because what students already know
interacts with the material being learned. Accordingly, learning consists of either adding to existing
student knowledge, known as conceptual growth, or transforming or revising student knowledge,
known as conceptual change. Learning as conceptual growth occurs when student knowledge is
consistent with material to be learned. Conceptual change is required when student knowledge is
inconsistent or erroneous with respect to correct information. In these cases, students’ knowledge
consists of “misconceptions” or “alternative conceptions.” Many common misconceptions are held by
both students and adults, particularly in subjects such as mathematics and science.3 Teachers can gain
an understanding of students’ current understanding of a specific subject area by administering an initial
assessment of student knowledge prior to instruction on a topic. This type of assessment, called a
formative assessment, can be used as a type of a pretest or as a baseline for student knowledge. When
the baseline assessment shows students to be harboring misconceptions, learning will require
conceptual change—that is, revision or transformation of student knowledge. Achieving conceptual
change in students is far more challenging for teachers than inducing conceptual growth because
misconceptions tend to be entrenched in reasoning and resistant to change. Students, like anyone, can
be very reluctant to alter their thinking, since it is familiar to them. Also, students are generally unaware
that their concepts are erroneous and hence believe them to be correct.
Relevance for Teachers
Teachers can be instrumental in achieving both conceptual growth and conceptual change in
students:
• When the baseline assessment shows students’ current knowledge to be consistent with the
curricular concepts to be taught, teachers can facilitate conceptual growth by engaging students in
meaningful, thoughtful interaction with the information to be learned. This might include having
students engage in activities such as reading, defining, summarizing, synthesizing, applying concepts,
and participating in hands-on activities.
• Simply telling students they need to think differently or using teaching strategies for inducing
conceptual growth will generally not lead to substantial change in student thinking. Bringing about
conceptual change requires teachers’ use of specific instructional strategies. Many of these entail
methods that precipitate cognitive conflict or dissonance in the minds of students by helping make them
aware of the discrepancy between their own thinking and correct curricular material or concepts.
For example:
• Teachers can have students play an active role in predicting solutions or processes and then
show these predictions to be faulty.
• Teachers can present students with credible information or data that run counter to their
misconceptions.
Student reasoning is not limited or determined by an underlying cognitive stage of development linked
to an age or a grade level. Instead, newer research on cognitive development has supplanted these
stage theory accounts. Infants have been found to have early, possibly native, competencies (biologically
based) in certain domains. For example, children can show knowledge of principles related to the
physical world (e.g., that stationary objects are displaced when they come into contact with moving
objects or that inanimate objects need to be propelled into motion), biological causality (e.g., animate
and inanimate entities differ), and numbers/numeracy (e.g., an understanding of numerical values up to
three items). Studies of cognitive development and learning that emphasize the background knowledge
or knowledge base of students reveal that they have many structures in place.
For example, students have a structure, known as schemas (i.e., mental representations), which guide
their understanding when encountering text and events. Contextualist approaches to cognitive
development and learning describe how context affects cognition. Supporters of cognitive approaches
point out that cognition can be interpersonally based, such that student reasoning can be facilitated to
more advanced levels when students interact with more capable others and/ or with more advanced
materials. This strategy is especially effective when materials are pitched not too near or too far from
students’ current level of functioning.
This principle is captured in what is called the zone of proximal development. Contextualize approaches
also support the idea that cognition can be “situated,” whereby knowledge accrues through the lived
practice of people in a society. That is, learning is conceived as participation in communities, with
students progressively acquiring situated actions (such as farming, learning a craft, or adapting to
societal expectations). Formal schooling can be viewed as a practice.
In sum, students are capable of higher level thinking and behavior when (a) there is some biological base
(early competency) for knowledge in the domain, (b) they already have some familiarity or expertise
with a knowledge domain, (c) they interact with more capable others or challenging materials, and (d) in
sociocultural contexts with which they are familiar through experience. Conversely, when students are
not familiar with a particular knowledge domain, are not challenged by the interpersonal context or
learning materials, or find the context of learning to be unfamiliar, their reasoning may be less
sophisticated.
Relevance for Teachers
Teachers’ estimation of what material should be presented and the method of presentation are more
effective when they can take into account the domain-relevant and contextual knowledge of their
students. Baseline assesssments can be used to assess this knowledge, and the results can be very
informative for instructional design. Students’ developmental levels can help teachers decide which
instructional experiences might be appropriate and relevant, but age should not necessarily be viewed
as the main or sole determinant of what a student is capable of knowing or reasoning.
In designing instruction, teachers can facilitate student reasoning by the following:
• Encouraging students’ reasoning in familiar areas that is, in knowledge domains and contexts
in which students already have substantial knowledge. For example, students are able to
comprehend reading material at a higher level and are able to write with greater sophistication
when they have substantial knowledge relevant to the topic of the reading or writing
assignment.
• Presenting topics and domains pitched at a moderate distance from students’ current level
of functioning. Providing information that is not too elementary to be easily understood and
not too complex to be out of range of understanding even with assistance represents the
perfect level of entry for new material. If a topic is unfamiliar, teachers may want to link that
topic to what students already know to foster more advanced levels of reasoning.
• Using heterogeneous groupings, whereby students are placed in mixed-ability groups to
allow for interaction with higher level thinkers in learning and problem solving.
• Helping students already at very high levels of functioning achieve even higher levels by
facilitating their interaction with still more advanced peers or with instructors and by using
advanced learning materials (as noted in the third bulleted entry above).
• Familiarizing students with the culture of classrooms and schooling practices. Although not
all classroom work can be approached by relying on peer collaboration, when possible this
approach can help students whose background experiences have not familiarized them with
schooling and classroom practices in the United States.
References
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students’
misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(10), 1001–1015. doi.org/10.1002 /tea.10054
Holding, M., Denton, R., Kulesza, A., & Ridgway, J. (2014). Confronting scientific misconceptions by
fostering a classroom of scientists in the introductory biology lab. American Biology Teacher,
76(8), 518–523.
Johnson, M., & Sinatra, G. (2014). The influence of approach and avoidance goals on conceptual change.
Journal of Educational Research, 107(4), 312–325. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.807492
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K. R., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007).
Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007-2004). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Research. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=1
Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). The Force Concept Inventory: A tool for monitoring student learning.
Physics Education, 37(1), 45–52.
