Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 496 – 502

INTE 2014

Communication during science classes

Marcin M. Chrzanowskia,*, Agnieszka Cieszyńskab, Barbara Ostrowskaa
a
Educational Research Institute, ul. Górczewska 8, 01-180, Warsaw, Poland
b
Laboratory of Biology and Nature Didactics, Institute of Environmental Biology, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University,
ul. Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań, Poland

Abstract

Constructivists claim that we get to know the world through of knowledge we possess. Students do not come to the class as carte
blanche. Their knowledge may be correct or erroneous. The school’s task is to transform common misconceptions about the
world into correct ideas. The teachers should use open dialogue and students’ preconceptions to connect new information with
the information already internalized. The article shows students’ misconception regarding biological knowledge and a model
dialogue in class. Additionally, authors propose a standardized didactic tool: a task which may be helpful in diagnosing the
problem.

© 2014 The
© 2015 TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedbyby Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Sakarya University.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Sakarya University
Keywords: communication, misconceptions, vernacular misconceptions, dialog, science, items;

1. Communication models

Cognitive psychology focuses on creative problem solving by man. It examines such phenomena as attention,
memory, imagination and thinking. One of the central problems of this area of science is answering the question
regarding perception of the world by man: do we get to know the external world directly or with the use
of representations created by us? Cognitive and emotional processes allow people to order reality properly –
to enter into relations with one another and into social relations. These relations rely on dialogue, including internal
discourse we constantly hold with ourselves, and exchange of messages with others (Nęcka, Orzechowski, &

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +48 22 24 17 112, +48 22 24 17 121.

E-mail address: m.chrzanowski@ibe.edu.pl

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Sakarya University
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.694
 Marcin M. Chrzanowski et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 496 – 502 497

Szymbura, 2013, Maruszewski, 2011). Therefore, in the process of education, provision of opportunities for frequent
dialogue with other people, with oneself, as well as with books and media is very important. Dialogues should serve
communication. The core of such dialogues is systematisation of personal experiences as well as organizing them
into more ordered categories.
In its simplest form, communication consists in transfering a message (communication) among interlocutors
in the broad sense. During classes, the information flow is as follows: Teacher ė Communication ė Student, and
Student ė Communication ė Teacher. Obviously, the presented form of communication may be extended, taking
into account such elements as the situational context, number of interlocutors, communication channels, noise and
discipline level in the class (Barnes, 1992). For the act of communication to be effective it is important, on the one
hand, that the recipient should understand the communication in a manner that was intended by the sender and,
on the other hand, that the sender should formulate it in a way that allows the recipient to understand it as intended.
Additionally, for complete communication a treating the recipient as a subject is very important. Both sides should
aim for efficient communication – the teacher and the student. What is more, communication in school should not
be unilateral, but rather multilateral with participation of many interlocutors. Barnes says that teachers have become
so used to thinking about the language in the categories of communication that many of them forget that it also
performs important subjective functions. Namely, the language is our main means to organize our experience
consciously and to think about it. A situation when spoken language in class is limited to the teacher’s utterance and
to students’ responses to questions and the written language is no more than rewriting of fragments of textbooks
leads to rejection of an important function of language as a tool for transforming one’s own experience (Barnes,
1992). For learning consists in identification and interpretation of things that we experience and translating the
incoming information into comprehensible language so that it may be permanently entered into our knowledge
structures.
One may find numerous models portraying the communication process in the literature. All of them take into
account the presence of a sender and a recipient, sometimes in compound, bilateral relations. A vast majority
of them assumes content flow from the sender to the recipient. Some models underline the necessity of decoding
and interpretation of information by the recipient, which seems to be particularly important in teaching science. For
example, the Osgood-Schramm circular model shows a connection between the sender and recipient
of a communication, and it indicates what takes place in the participants of the process: encoding, decoding and
interpretation of information (Schramm, 1974). Encoding is transforming thoughts into a communication, a selection
of words, gestures and circumstances. The communication reaches the recipient where it is decoded and interpreted.
Constructivists say that we learn through the knowledge we possess (Piaget, 1964). This knowledge influences the
manner in which the recipient reads the communication, what they consider important in it and how they interpret it.
What we already know instills the things that we learn with sense (Bruner, 1978). Our perception is mediated by our
experiences, thus learning is of active character. Therefore, it is not the sender but rather the recipient who fills the
communication with sense. How the communication is read depends on the approach, pool of terms, efficiency
of thinking and many other features. In the case of science, the number of “foreign terms” which the student has
to internalize, even during a single class, is enormous and exceeds the number of the new terms taken into account
in foreign languages textbooks (Grooves, 2010). Due to the fact that school should be the place where the students
get to know and internalize a set of terms for describing the world – both at school and in every-day life – it seems
essential to investigate the problem of using terms that are new to the students. Efficient communication has unique
significance for educational practice. Verbal communication, that is based on semantic knowledge, may
be examined in terms of three aspects: semantic, syntactic and organizational. First of all, meanings of terms and
idioms should be identical for the teacher and the students; therefore, sharing of concepts is indispensable among
them (semantic aspect). In order to avoid distortions in the meaning of a communication, construction of
an utterance should be proper and grammatically correct (syntactic aspect). Additionally, it is very important that the
teacher’s words inspire the students and questions and instructions are formulated in a manner conducive to efficient
work in class (organizational aspect).
498 Marcin M. Chrzanowski et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 496 – 502

2. Communication in class

Kwieciński’s studies indicate that up to 80% of words uttered in a class may come from the teacher. Additionally,
Kwieciński states that for every other student of a rural primary school literary language (including the language
of textbooks) is incomprehensible. They treat it as a foreign language and are not able to master it (Kwieciński,
1995). It seems that teachers, feeling greatly responsible for their work, tend to monopolize communication in class
(Barnes, 1992). When they ask questions, they are usually brief, purpose-oriented and hardly spontaneous.
Therefore, it seems that a class is dominated by teacher’s language. It is true: teachers are obliged to use terms
correctly and consequently to make students acquainted with them. However, it is not always the case that the
teacher’s language is fully understandable to the students. What is more, even in a situation when both teachers and
students use the same terms, there is no certainty that they are, in fact, talking about the same phenomenon and
understand the problem in the same way. The school situation and the grading system related to school is connected
to the fact that student’s responses are incited and, often fragmentary. It is difficult to combine them into a whole.
Hence, on may infer that the student only answers for the teacher’s sake while others do not listen, and
so it is difficult to call communication in class a dialogue (Basińska & Pitrala, 2010).

3. Students’ Misconceptions

Imperfect communication between the teacher and students, related, inter alia, to the absence of linguistic and
symbolic community and, above all, resulting from the use scientific terms that seem artificial to the students may
contribute to emergence or strengthening of the so-called misconceptions in students. We deal with a misconception
in a situation when a person accepts erroneous premises and builds the image of reality surrounding him or her
on this basis. According to Page, nobody is entirely free from erroneous assumptions and naïve ideas (Page, 2012).
Both students and teachers have them; everybody has them – a young person and an adult, irrespective of their
scientific background. Sources of misconceptions may be divided into two major categories: experiential ones and
the ones that derive from instruction (Skelly, 1993). Sources of misconceptions may therefore be looked for not only
in linguistic misunderstandings which have their beginning in the manner of teaching of science (and other
subjects). They may result from an attempt at understanding the world with limited knowledge on the basis of inter-
human relations, prejudices or religious beliefs. In 1997 the Committee on Undergraduate Science Education
established a categorization encompassing five major types of misconceptions: conceptual misunderstandings,
nonscientific beliefs, factual misconceptions, preconceived notions and vernacular misconceptions (Moore et al.,
1997). Vernacular misconceptions stem from language confusion (Page, 2012). Chrzanowski et al. distinguished
four types of vernacular misconceptions (Chrzanowski, Grajkowski, Żuchowski, Buczek, Walicki, & Ostrowska,
2014). One of the methods of diagnosing, clarifying and correcting students’ misconceptions is a discourse between
a teacher and his students.

4. How to talk to students?

Complete understanding between a teacher and a student seems possible only when communication in the class
relies on three aspects mentioned above: semantic, syntactic and organizational. As for clarifying misconceptions,
the semantic aspect seems critical. Many teachers have worked out methods which may improve the quality
of communication with students.. They result from teachers’ conviction that it is worth talking.
Let us look at a situation when the student’s response is not entirely correct. It is possible to tell such a student:
“All right, you have not learnt about it; read about it once again from your textbook” or say: “Wrong” or “No, this
is not right.” One may also draw from such (partially) incorrect answer issues presented correctly and make of them
a basis for continuation of the talk and asking questions, addressed not only to a specific student, but to the entire
class.
As an example we can take a lesson covering biological terms which seem to be self-explanatory, while using
them without clear understanding may actually lead to misconceptions. Students as well as many adults share
a misconception that an autotroph is an organism that can feed itself. According to them, such an organism collects,
 Marcin M. Chrzanowski et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 496 – 502 499

but does not produce food, whereas a heterotroph is an organism that is not able to feed itself (Chrzanowski,
Grajkowski, Żuchowski, Buczek, Walicki, & Ostrowska, 2014). What could be a probable dialogue during a science
class in a primary school or during a biology class in a middle school?
Teacher: Let us try to tell the difference between an autotroph and a heterotroph. Please tell me, what
is an autotroph?
Student 1: An autotroph is an organism that feeds itself.
Teacher: You used – correctly – the phrase “an organism that feeds itself.” You have already encountered this term
during classes. Can anybody explain what it means that an organism “feeds itself”?
Student 2: This is an organism that gets food for itself.
Teacher: So how does it work? Could you specify what it means?
Student 2: For example, when I go to the fridge and make some sandwiches and nobody helps me with it, so I feed
myself.
Teacher: Right, so according to you, what would be a heterotroph?
Student 3: For example my cat, which I have to feed.
Teacher: You are right, your cat is a heterotroph. But is it because it is you who give it a bowl of food? Do you
know any other examples of autotrophs and heterotrophs?
Student 4: For example, a tree is an autotroph, because we do not have to feed it, unlike a cat.
Teacher: Excellent. This is a very good example of an autotroph. Where does the tree get food from?
Student 2: My father watered the trees in a garden with a special fertilizer.
Teacher: Hmmm, this is a good clue... but what about trees in a forest? Let’s go back to people. Everything that
people eat has to be grown, bought or produced. But let us look at the definition of an autotroph in a dictionary
of biology…

Subsequently, the teacher explains the difference between autotrophy and heterotrophy and clarifies that
in biological language the meaning of these words is different from that in colloquial language.
At the end of the class the teacher may test the understanding of the terms by students and find out whether or not
students understand the difference between heterotrophy and autotrophy. This is important because, according
to studies, some of the students often stick to their misconceptions (Thompson & Logue, 2006, Ross, Tronson,
& Ritchie, 2005, Demircioğlu, Ayas, & Demircioğlu, 2005, Kam-Wah 1995).

5. Problem diagnosis

One of the forms of diagnosing the degree of understanding of the problem described above is the use of a text
task. An example of such task, see Fig. 1.
In order to do the task correctly, the student has only to understand the meaning of the terms “autotroph” and
“heterotroph” and to know the groups in which plants and fungi are included. The difficulty in the task is the species
selection – on the illustration presented two of them (moss and tinder fungus) grow on a tree trunk, whereas others
(birch and scaber stalk) grow directly from the ground. Students who did not fully understand the division
of organisms into autotrophs and heterotrophs may have been influenced by this differentiation. It is possible to
extend or modify the task, depending on students’ knowledge about fungi by, for example., introducing organisms
that occur in the students’ neighborhood.
500 Marcin M. Chrzanowski et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 496 – 502

Fig. 1. Text item to diagnose the degree of understanding of the problem featured in section 4.

6. Conclusions

The above-presented task is only a clue and one of the examples showing how to work with students
in diagnosing and uprooting their misconceptions. In this process it is possible to discern several stages. The first
of them consists in determining the assumptions behind misconceptions; the second is an attempt at understanding
and explaining why these assumptions are incorrect, whereas the third one should aim at build a version of the world
compatible with commonly accepted scientific theories. It is also important to check the students’ concepts when
they leave the class.

Referring to a simplified image of the world, both by students and teachers, is natural and necessary at early
educational stages. However, it is worth bearing in mind that simplifications should not distort the vision of reality.
Even though misconceptions – and in particular experiential misconceptions – are very difficult to eradicate, they
may be subject transformed into concepts corresponding to scientific theories. This takes place in the course
of a process known as conceptual change (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). The presented approach is one
of many methods of fighting against students’ misconceptions. Another efficient method is the use of refutation
texts (Tippet, 2010).

Students do not come to the class as carte blanche (Piaget, 1964). They have their own vision of the world and
they try to explain and understand the world in their own way. Such initial comprehension may be erroneous
(misconceptions) or correct (preconceptions, conceptions). In the course of instruction misconceptions should
be subjected to rectification and replacement by conceptions compatible with scientific knowledge. On the other
hand, correct preconceptions should be skillfully handled so that they do not become misconceptions. In the
teaching process it is worth paying attention to open and inspiring dialogue between the student and the teacher,
 Marcin M. Chrzanowski et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 496 – 502 501

a dialogue that ought not always to be followed by grading. The aim of this activity is to examine the scale of the
problem along with finding a method of working with students that is relevant to a problem in question.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Wojciech Grajkowski, Ph.D. from Educational Research Institute for the
support and Szymon Żuchowski for the language consultation.

This project is co-funded by European Union within European Social Fund.

References

Basińska, A., & Pietrala, T. (2010). Questioning The Author (The Nature) – metoda modelowania dialogów w klasie. Unbublished instructional
materials, Poznań

Bruner, J. (1978). Poza dostarczone informacje (1st ed.). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN

Barnes, D., (1992). From Communication to Curriculum (2nd ed.). Middlesex: Heinemann

Chrzanowski, M. M., Grajkowski W., Żuchowski, S., Buczek, I., Walicki, P., Ostrowska, B. (2014). Different Sources of Vernacular
Misconceptions Found in Laboratory of Thinking Research Items, unpublished materials

Demircioğlu, G., Ayas, A., & Demircioğlu, H. (2005). Conceptual change achieved through a new teaching program on acids and bases.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6, 1, 36–51

Grooves, F. H. (2010). Science Vocabulary Load of Selected Secondary Science Textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 5, 231–235

Kam-Wah, L. L. (1995). Children's ideas in science: some strategies for teacher intervention. Teaching and Learning, 16, 1, 72 – 80

Kwieciński, Z. (1995). The Sociopathology of Education (1st ed.). Toruń: Edytor

Maruszewski T. (2011). Psychologia poznania – Umysł i świat (1st ed.). Gdańsk: GWP Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne

Moore, B. C., Abella, I. D., Abraham, N. B., Boggs, G., Denton, D. D., Doyle, M. P., Fox, M. A., Gabel, D. L., Gangolli, R., Graybeal, F. T.,
Hackerman, N., Haynes, J. K., Johann, E. D., Kirwan, W. E., Kuerbis, P. J., Long, S., Merritts, D. J., Moore, J. A., Moore, P. P., Reynolds, W. A.,
Serum, J. W., Wilkinson, D. T., & Davis, B. G. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: a handbook. Washington: Committee on Undergraduate
Science Education, National Research Council
Nęcka, E., Orzechowski, J., & Szymbura, B. (2013) Psychologia Poznawcza (1st ed.). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN

Page, K. (2012). Misunderstanding Misconceptions. Science Scope, 4, 1, 12–15

Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 3,
176–186

Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.
Science Education, 66, 211–227

Ross, P., Tronson, D., & Ritchie, R. J. (2005). Modeling Photosynthesis to Increase Conceptual Understanding. Journal of Biological Education,
40, 2, 84–88

Skelly, K. M. (1993). The Development and Validation of a Categorization of Sources of Misconceptions in Chemistry, 3rd International
Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Misconceptions Trust. Ithaca, NY, United States of America
502 Marcin M. Chrzanowski et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 496 – 502

Schramm, W. (1974). How Communication Work. In D. J. M. Civikly, (red) A Reader in Human Communication (pp. 7–8). New York: Random
House

Tippet, C. D. (2010). Refutation Text in Science Education: A Review Of Two Decades of Research. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 8, 6, 951–970

Thompson, F., & Logue, S. (2006). An exploration of common student misconceptions in science. International Education Journal, 7, 4, 553–
559