From Misinterpretations to Myths
M. Mahadeva · The Science Teacher · 1989
science. Science is tentative and self correcting; yet as teachers we often perpetuate the myth that scientists are infallible— and perhaps inadvertently, many other myths, as well. We offer a collection of unalterable facts in our textbooks, and test with true and false items. We support and even create misinformation that may stay with our students for years. In every form of communication of an idep, there is apt to be some loss of accuracy in content. Such a loss may be due not only to errors of an inad vertent omission or an addition of a word or a phrase, but also to the inevitable confines of the cognitive framework of the audience. At any rate, even though the slight loss in meaning is barely noticeable at first, in time through repetitions of such errors in increasingly inappropriate contexts, by teachers, by authors in textbooks, articles, and scientific pa pers, soon the original concept itself gets distorted significantly. Such dis tortions may be called by a number of names, such as misinterpretations, myths, misunderstandings, and mis conceptions. By misinterpretations, I mean those conceptual errors that have been in advertently introduced and nurtured by scientists, teachers, and textbook writers. Misinterpretations spring from a number of causes, including the very process of science and care lessness in writing. Myths I define as widespread, unscientific beliefs held by the society at large that people tradi tionally acquire from their homes and from other societal institutions, such as schools. Myths abound about such concepts as heredity, evolution, and race. Unfortunately for our students, both misinterpretations and myths are often passed along in our textbooks ,and teaching. I define misunderstandings as the mistakes students make in learning a scientific concept. These mistakes may be due to different cultural or societal perspectives on the part of the stu dent and the teacher. Misconception as a more technical meaning, acquired in recent years as a result of extensive research by Joseph Novak and others; it has been described as an alternate framework. These two communication breakdowns fall in a different realm rom misinterpretations and myths. Let's look first at the misinterpreta tions related to the process of science. Many intractable misinterpretations originate as alternate hypotheses. Used as heuristic and/or speculative tools, these hypotheses are quite legitimate