Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are Elementary Preservice Teachers Floating or Sinking in Their Understanding of Buoyancy?

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research study investigated conceptions about buoyancy held by 55 elementary preservice teachers enrolled in a science methods course who participated in an instructional intervention designed to increase their knowledge about buoyancy. Pre- and post-concept maps were analyzed using a paired sample t test and thematic analysis was used to interpret narratives, drawings, and interview data. There was a statistically significant difference (t = −3.504, p = .001) in the total number of scientifically correct concepts for the pre-concept maps (M = 0.51, SD = .879) and post-concept maps (M = 1.25, SD = 1.542). The total number of accurate propositions increased between the pre- and post-concept maps. The drawings revealed that most participants (66%) had alternative conceptions about how gravity is related to buoyancy and the role it plays in floating and sinking. Data from the interviews triangulated with other data sources that showed gains in scientific conceptions such as opposing forces (53%) and surface area (33%), while documenting the persistence of serious alternative conceptions about floating and sinking (49%), the key role of fluid density (56%), and density of an object (62%).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2013). Animated and static concept maps enhance learning from spoken narration. Learning and Instruction, 27, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akatugba, A. A., & Wallace, J. (1999). Sociocultural influences on physics students’ use of proportional reasoning in a non-western country. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 305–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Au, T. K. F. (1994). Developing an intuitive understanding of substance kinds. Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 71–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P., & Robinson, F. G. (1969). School learning: An introduction to educational psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014). Outlier removal and the relation with reporting errors and quality of psychological research. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e103360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biddulph, F., Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1983). Investigating learning in science at the primary school level. Research in Science Education, 13(1), 223–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blunt, J. R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Learning with retrieval-based concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 849–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bramwell-Lalor, S., & Rainford, M. (2014). The effects of using concept mapping for improving advanced level biology students’ lower-and higher-order cognitive skills. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 839–864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butts, D. P., Anderson, M., & Hofman, H. M. (1993). Is hands-on experience enough? A study of young children’s views of sinking and floating objects. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5(1), 50–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, J. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Boulder: BSCS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & del eeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, J. W., Cañas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Reichherzer, T., & Suri, N. (2003). Knowledge modeling and the creation of El-Tech: A performance support and training system for electronic technicians. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(4), 483–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, K. R., Dickerson, D. L., McKinnet, S. E., & Butler, S. (2008). Teaching density to middle school students: Preservice teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical practices. The Clearing House, 82(1), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, G. E., Lohr, M. E., Bartos, S., & Reid, J. W. (2019). Comparing individual and group-negotiated knowledge structures in an introductory biology course for majors. Journal of Biological Education, 53(3), 274–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giambattista, A., Richardson, B., & Richards, R. (2010). College physics (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, A. (1996). When it comes to teaching about floating and sinking, preservice elementary teachers do not have to feel as though they are drowning! Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, F. T. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. The Journal of the Learning Science, 19(3), 285–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyton, E., & Farokhi, E. (1987). Relationships among academic performance, basic skills subject matter knowledge, and Edith Guyton Elizabeth Farokhi teaching skills of teacher education graduates. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(5), 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halford, G. S., Brown, C. A., & Thompson, R. M. (1986). Children’s concepts of volume and flotation. Developmental Psychology, 22(2), 218–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrell P. E., Thompson, R. R., & Brooks, K. (2019). Leaving schools behind: the impact of school setting and working conditions on teacher retention and migration. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(20), 144–158.

  • Hay, D. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies. Education and Training, 48(2/3), 127–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsin, C., & Wu, H. (2011). Using scaffolding strategies to promote young children’s scientific understandings of floating and sinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 656–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G. J., Kuo, F. R., Chen, N. S., & Ho, H. J. (2014). Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students’ learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads. Computers & Education, 71, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javonillo, R., & Martin-Dunlopo, C. (2019). Linking phrases for concept mapping in introductory college biology. Journal of College Biology Teaching, 45(3), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kariotogloy, P., Koumaras, P., & Psillos, D. (1993). A constructivist approach for teaching fluid phenomena. Physics Education, 28(3), 164–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, P. (2012). Misunderstanding misconceptions. Science Scope, 35(8), 12–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. M. (2019). Accessing expert understanding: The value of visualizing knowledge structures in professional education. In K. Trimmer et al. (Eds.), Ensuring quality in professional education volume 2 (pp. 71–89). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, A. S. (1993). Preschoolers’ reasoning about density: Will it float? Child Development, 64(6), 1637–1650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? Science Scope, 35(7), 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, C., Harrell, P. E., Subramaniam, K., & Pope, E. (2019). Using microteaching to improve preservice elementary teachers’ physical science content knowledge. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 16–31. Cabell’s Directory acceptance rate is 20%.

  • Luo, T., & Baaki, J. (2019). Graduate students using concept mapping to visualize instructional design processes. Tech Trends, 63(1), 451–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, B., Hoffman, R. R., Novak, J., & Cañas, A. (2011). Applied concept mapping: Capturing, analyzing, and organizing knowledge. New York: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Teaching America’s Future. (1996). Doing what matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, D. C., Smith, D., & Johnson, V. G. (1990). Implementing conceptual change teaching in primary science. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 109–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1977a). An alternative to Piagetian psychology for science and mathematics education. Science Education, 61(4), 453–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1977b). A theory of education. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowicki, B. L., Sullivan-Watts, B., Shim, M. K., Young, B., & Pockalny, R. (2013). Factors including science content accuracy in elementary inquiry science lessons. Research in Science Education, 43, 1135–1154.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Donnell, A., Dansereau, D., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Student’s alternative frameworks and science education (5th ed.). Kiel: University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potvin, P., & Cyr, G. (2017). Toward a durable prevalence of scientific conceptions: Tracking the effects of two interfering misconceptions about buoyancy from preschoolers to science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1121–1142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece, D. A. (1982). T is for trouble (and textbooks): A critique of some examples of the paired-samples t-test. The Statistician, 31(2), 169–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Tenenbaum, H. R., Koepke, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (2007). Transient and robust knowledge: Contextual support and the dynamics of children’s reasoning about density. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(2), 98–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowell, J. A., & Dawson, C. J. (1977a). Teaching about floating and sinking: An attempt to link cognitive psychology with classroom practice. Science Education, 61(2), 245–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowell, J. A., & Dawson, C. J. (1977b). Teaching about floating and sinking: Further studies toward closing the gap between cognitive psychology and classroom practice. Science Education, 61(4), 527–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryve, A. (2004). Can collaborative concept mapping create mathematically productive discourses? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(2), 157–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, N. L., Nesbit, J. C., Anguiano, C. J., & Adesope, O. O. (2018). Studying and constructing concept maps: A met-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 39(1), 431–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J. (1972). Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure in physics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 225–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J. (1974). Methods for examining representations of a subject- matter structure in a student’s memory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(3), 231–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • She, H.-C. (2002). Concepts of a higher hierarchical level require more dual situated learning events for conceptual change: A study of air pressure and buoyancy. International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 981–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21(3), 177–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stepans, J., Dyche, S., & Beiswenger, R. (1988). The effect of two instructional models in bringing about conceptual change in the understanding of science concepts by prospective elementary teachers. Science Education, 72(2), 185–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoddart, T., Connell, M., Stofflett, R., & Peck, D. (1993). Reconstructing elementary teacher candidates’ understanding of mathematics and science content. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9(3), 229–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, K. & Harrell, P. (2015). An analysis of prospective teachers’ knowledge for constructing concept maps. Educational Research, 57(3), 217–236.

  • Subramaniam, K. Harrell, P., Long, C., & Khan, N. (2020). Pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptual understanding of average speed: the systematicity and persistence of related and unrelated concepts. Research in Science and Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1782880

  • Tsai, C. C. (2000). Enhancing science instruction: The use of 'conflict maps'. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 285–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zele, E., Lenaerts, J., & Wieme, W. (2004). Improving the usefulness of concept maps as a research tool for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1043–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitale, J. M., Applebaum, L., & Linn, M. C. (2019). Coordinating between Graphs and Science Concepts: Density and Buoyancy. Cognition and Instruction, 37(1), 38–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (Document R-01-3). Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Retrieved from https://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-2001.pdf.

  • Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 166–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2016). University physics: With modern physics. London: Pearson Education, Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Texas, P.O. Box 310740, Denton, TX, 76203, USA

    Pamela Esprívalo Harrell, Kartheyan Subramaniam & Chris Long

  2. Jesuit Dallas, 12345 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX, 75244, USA

    Benjamin Kirby

Authors
  1. Pamela Esprívalo Harrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Kirby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kartheyan Subramaniam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamela Esprívalo Harrell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harrell, P.E., Kirby, B., Subramaniam, K. et al. Are Elementary Preservice Teachers Floating or Sinking in Their Understanding of Buoyancy?. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 20, 299–320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10160-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10160-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation