Student or Learner
many studies have shown that children harbour misconceptions about 'pure', curriculum science. these misconceptions do not remain islated but become incorprated into a multifaced, but orginized, conceptual framework, making it and the component ideas, some of which are erroneous, more robusta but also accessible to modification.
what does pure mean here?
what does it refer to?
what is some of which?
so what making it erroneous? the misconceptions changed in to a frame work, and then making the framework wrong?Originally Posted by dogg
many studies have shown that children harbour misconceptions about 'pure' curriculum science. These misconceptions do not remain isolated but become incorporated into a multifaceted, but organized, conceptual framework, making it and the component ideas, some of which are erroneous, more robust but also accessible to modification.
what does pure mean here? unadulterated - science for its own sake, not related to other disciplines.
what does it refer to? the framework
what is some of which? the component ideas
and, accessible to modification, it means easy to change, right? now, is it good or bad? does it mean it easy to become better, or worse
I cannot tell what makes them erroneous - there is not enough information or context.
However, the author is suggesting that whatever these misconception about science are, children build them into their conceptual frameworks and that these frameworks contain both the misconceptions and other concepts, some of these being erroneous. It is suggested that these frameworks may be strongly held, but that they can also be altered.